EPA Cost Evaluation of Small System
Compliance Options: Point-of-Use and
Point-of-Entry Treatment Units
Prepared By:
The Cadmus Group, Inc.
135 Beaver Street
Waltham, Massachusetts 02154
(as a Subcontractor to The LEADS Corporation)
Prepared For:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
Standards and Risk Management Division
Washington, D.C.
DRAFT Do Not Cite or Distribute
June 23, 1998
Revised September 4, 1998
-------
CONTENTS
1.0 Background and Introduction 1
1.1 Regulatory Background 1
1.2 Point-of-Entry and Point-of-Use Devices 2
1.2.1 Point-of-Use Devices 3
1.2.2 Point-of-Entry Devices 3
1.3 Treatment Processes Applied at the Point-of-Entry or the Point-of-Use 4
1.3.1 Activated Alumina « 4
1.3.2 Activated Carbon 5
1.3.3 . Aeration 6
1.3.3.1 Packed Tower Aeration 6
1.3.3.2 Diffuse Bubble Aeration 6
1.3.4 Ion Exchange 7
1.3.5 Reverse Osmosis 8
1.3.6 Ultraviolet Light 9
1.3.7 Distillation 10
1.4 Bacteriological Contamination 11
1.4.1 Bacterial Study of Point-of-Use Systems 11
1.4.2 Bacterial Study of Point-Of-Entry Systems 12
1.4.3 Additional Discussion 12
1.5 Management Issues 12
1.5.1 Device Selection 13
1.5.2 Device Installation 15
1.5.3 Operation and Maintenance 16
1.5.4 Public Relations and Education 18
1.5.5 Economic Considerations 18
2.0 Case Studies 21
2.1 Arsenic Treatment 27
2.1.1 Fairbanks, Alaska and Eugene, Oregon 28
2.1.1.1 Activated Alumina 30
2.1.1.2 Anion Exchange 30
2.1.1.3 Reverse Osmosis 31
2.1.1.4 Cost Data and Study Conclusions 31
2.1.2 San Ysidro, New Mexico 32
2.2 Fluoride Treatment 40
2.2.1 Suffolk, Virginia 40
2.2.2 Various Sites in Arizona and Illinois 43
2.2.3 Emington, Illinois 45
2.3 Radium Treatment: Bellevue, Wisconsin 46
2.4 Uranium Treatment: Various Sites in Colorado and New Mexico 52
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
2.5 Various Inorganic Compounds: Cincinnati, Ohio
2.6 Nitrate Treatment
2.6.1 Suffolk County, New York
2.6.2 POE and Central Treatment Cost Comparison
2.7 RadonTreatment: Various States
2.8 Aldicarb Treatment
2.8.1 Suffolk County, New York
2.8.2 Various Sites in Florida
2.9 Trichloroethylene Treatment
2.9.1 Byron, Illinois
2.9.2 POE and Central Treatment Cost Comparison
2.9.3 Elkhart, Indiana
2.9.4 Rockaway Township, New Jersey
2.9.5 Silverdale, Pennsylvania
2.9.6 Putnam County, New York 74
2.9.7 POU and Central Treatment Cost Comparison I 77
2.9.8 POE and Central Treatment Cost Comparison II 78
2.10 DBCP Treatment: Fresno, California 79
2.11 Microbiological Treatment 80
2.11.1 Ephraim, Wisconsin 80
2.11.2 Gibson Canyon, California 84
2.12 POU Treatment Devices 86
2.12.1 Gumerman (1984) 86
2.12.1.1 Activated Alumina 87
2.12.1.2 Granular Activated Carbon 88
2.12.1.3 Anion Exchange 90
2.12.1.4 Cation Exchange 91
2.12.1.5 Reverse Osmosis 93
2.12.2 Ebbert (1985) 95
2.12.3 Tiskillwa, New York 96
2.13 POE Treatment Devices: Regulatory Impact Analysis (1987) 96
2.14 POU and POE Treatment Devices: U.S. EPA (1988, 1989) 97
3.0 Model System Scenarios 99
3.1 Arsenictreatment 100
3.2 Copper Treatment 102
3.3 Alachlor Treatment 104
3.4 Radon Treatment 105
3.5 Trich loroethylene Treatment 107
3.6 Nitrate Treatment 107
3.7 Conclusions 109
53
54
54
57
58
61
62
63
63
65
66
69
71
U
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
4.0 Cost Analysis ill
4.1 General Assumptions 112
4.2 Capital Costs . 113
4.3 Operation and Maintenance Costs 115
4.3.1 Maintenance Costs itS
4.3.2 Sampling and Lab Analysis 130
4.3.3 Administrative Costs 131
4.4 Total Costs 132
4.4.1 Treatment for Arsenic 144
4.4.1.1 Point-of-Use Treatment for Arsenic 144
4.4.1.2 Point-of-Entry Treatment for Arsenic 145
4.4.1.3 Central Treatment for Arsenic 146
4.4.1.4 Least-Cost Treatment for Arsenic 146
4.4.2 Treatment for Copper 156
4.4.2.1 Point-of-Use Treatment for Copper 156
4.4.2.2 Point-of-Entry Treatment for Copper 156
4.4.2.3 Central Treatment for Copper 156
4.4.2.4 Least-Cost Treatment for Copper 156
4.4.3 Treatment for Alachior 162
4.4.3.1 Point-of-Use Treatment for Alachior 162
4.4.3.2 Point-of-Entry Treatment for Alachior 162
4.4.3.3 Central Treatment for Alachior 162
4.4.3.4 Least-Cost Treatment for Alachior 162.
4.4.4 Treatment for Radon to 300 pCi/L 168
4.4.4.1 Point-of Entry Treatment for Radon to 300 pCi/L 168
4.4.4.2 Central Treatment for Radon to 300 pC11L 168
4.4.4.3 Least-Cost Treatment for Radon (300 pCi/L) 169
4.4.5 Radon Treatment to 1,500 pCi/L 177
4.4.5.1 Point-of-Entry Treatment for Radon to 1,500 pCi/L ... 177
4.4.5.2 Central Treatment for Radon to 1,500 pCi/L 177
4.4.5.3 Least-Cost Treatment for Radon (1,500 pCiIL) 178
4.4.6 Tnchloroethylene Treatment 186
4.4.6.1 Point-of-Entry Treatment for Trichioroethylene 186
4.4.6.2 Central Treatment for Trichioroethylene 186
4.4.6.3 Least-Cost Treatment for Trichioroethylene 187
4.4.7 Nitrate Treatment 195
4.4.7.1 Point-of-Use Treatment for Nitrate 195
4.4.7.2 Point-of-Entry Treatment for Nitrate 195
4.4.7.3 Central Treatment for Nitrate 196
4.4.7.4 Least-Cost Treatment for Nitrate 196
LU
-------
TABLES
2.1: Case Study Cost Data .23
2.1.1.1: Source Water Quality of Surveyed Households in Fairbanks and Eugene .. . . 29
2.1 .2.1: Performance Data for POU RO Devices in San Ysidro, NM 34
2.1.2.2: Cost of POU and Central Treatment Options for San Ysidro, NM 37
2.2.1.1: Performance Data for a Typical POU RO Unit in Suffolk, VA 42
2.2.1.2: Cost Estimates of Compliance Options for Suffolk, VA 42
2.2.2.1: Performance and Cost Data for POU AA Devices in Arizona 43
2.2.2.2: Performance and Cost Data for POU AA Devices in Illinois 44
2.2.3.1: Performance and Cost Data for POU RO Devices in Emington, IL 46
2.3.1: Source Water Quality of Wells in Bellevue, WI 48
2.3.2: Cost Data for POE CX Devices (No Outside Connections) in Bellevue, WI. . . . 50
2.3.3: Cost Data for POE CX Devices (With Outside Connections) in Bellevue, WI . . 51
2.3.4: Costs of Compliance Options for Bellevue, WI 52
2.5.1: Performance Data for POU RO Device in Laboratory Testing - Cincinnati, OH. 53
2.6.1.1: Performance Data for POU and POE Devices in Suffolk County, NY 55
2.6.1.2: Representative Cost Data for POU and POE Devices 56
2.6.1.3: Average Annual Cost of POU Treatment for Riverhead and Southhold, NY . . 57
2.6.2.1: Costs of AX Compliance Options for Communities of Differing Density I .. . 58
2.6.2.2: Costs of AX Compliance Options for Communities of Differing Density II . . 58
2.7.1: Performance Data for POE GAC Devices 60
2.7.2: Cost Data for POE GAC Devices 60
2.9.2.1: Costs of GAC Compliance Options for Communities of Differing Density I . .66
2.9.2.2: Costs of GAC Compliance Options for Communities of Differing Density II . 66
2.9.3.1: Performance Data for POE GAC Devices in Elkhart, iN 69
2.9.4.1: Performance and Cost Data for POU GAC Devices in Rockaway Township . . 71
2.9.5.1: Performance and Cost Data for POU GAC Devices in Silverdale, PA 73
2.9.5.2: Source Water Quality of Surveyed Houses in Silverdale, PA 74
2.9.6.1: Source Water Quality of Surveyed Households in Putnam County, NY 75
2.9.6.2: Cost Data for POE GAC Devices in Putnam County, NY 76
2.9.7.1: Costs of GAC Compliance Options for Communities of Differing Size I . .. . 78
2.9.8.1: Costs of GAC Compliance Options for Communities of Differing Size II . ... 79
iv
-------
2.14.1:
3.0.1:
3.1.1:
3.1.2:
3.2.1:
3.3.1:
3.4.1:
3.6.1:
4.2.1:
4.2.2:
4.2.3:
TABLES (continued)
83
84
85
85
87
88
89
89
90
91
92
92
94
95
2.11.1.1: Cost Estimate for POE Treatment in Ephraim, WI
2.11.2.1: Cost Data for Compliance Options in Gibson Canyon, CA
2.11.2.2: Cost Data for Retrofit of Existing POE Devices
2.11.2.3: Cost Data for Maintenance of Existing POE Devices
2.12.1.1: Capital Cost Data for POU AA Devices
2.12.1.1.2: Operation and Maintenance Cost Data for POU AA Devices
2.12.1.2.1: Capital Cost Data for POU GAC Devices
2.12.1.2.2: Operation and Maintenance Cost Data for POU GAC Devices..
2.12.1.3.1: Capital Cost Data for POU AX Devices
2.12.1.3.2: Operation and Maintenance Cost Data for POU AX Devices
2.12.1.4.1: Capital Cost Data for POU CX Devices
2.12.1.4.2: Operation and Maintenance Cost Data for POU CX Devices
2.12.1.5.1: Capital Cost Data for POU RO Devices
2.12.1.5.2: Operation and Maintenance Cost Data for POU RO Devices
2.12.2.1: Cost Data for POU Devices from Ebbert
2.13.1: Cost Data for POE Devices from 1987 RIA
2.14.1: Cost Data for POU Devices from EPA In-House Study
2.14.2: Cost Data for POE Devices from EPA In-House Study
95
97
97
98
POU and POE Capital costs from EPA database 98
Model System Scenarios 100
Cost Data for POU RO Devices from Model Scenario One 101
Cost Data for POE and POU AA Devices from Model Scenario Two 102
Cost Data for POE and POU Devices from Model Scenario Three 103
Cost Data for POU GAC and POU RO Devices from Model Scenario Four... 105
Cost Data for POE GAC Devices from Model Scenarios Five, Six, and Seven 106
Cost Data for POU and POE Devices from Model Scenario Nine 108
Capital Cost Data from Case Studies 116
Capital Cost Data from Vendor Survey 119
Capital Cost Data (Cadmus 1997) 120
V
-------
TABLES (continued)
4.3.1: Operation and Maintena ice Cost Data from Case Studies .
4.3.2: Operation and Maintenance Cost Data from Vendor Survey
4.3.3: Operation and Maintenance Cost Data (Cadmus 1997)
4.3.1.1: Cost Data for POU Replacement Components
4.3.1.2: Cost Data for POE Replacement Components
4.3.2.1: Cost Data for Lab Analyses
4.4.1: Cost Data from Case Studies
4.4.2: Cost Data from Vendor Survey
4.4.3: Capital Cost Data for POE and POU Devices (Cadmus 1997)
4.4.4: Cost Data for Central Treatment (Oumerman 1984)
122
125
126
128
129
131
133
137
139
142
vi
-------
FIGURES
2.1: Study Design . . 22
4.4.1.1.1 POU Treatment for Arsenic with Activated Alumina 128
4.4.1.1.2 POU Treatment for Arsenic with Anion Exchange 129
4.4.1.1.3 POU Treatment for Arsenic with Reverse Osmosis 130
4.4.1.1.4 POU Treatment for Arsenic 131
4.4.1.2.1 POE Treatment for Arsenic with Activated Alumina and Anion Exchange . 132
4.4.1.2.2 POE Treatment for Arsenic with Reverse Osmosis 133
4.4.1.2.3 POE Treatment for Arsenic 134
4.4.1.3.1 Central Treatment for Arsenic 135
4.4.1.4.1 Treatment for Arsenic 136
4.4.2.1.1 POLJ Treatment for Copper 139
4.4.2.2.1 POE Treatment for Copper .... 140
4.4.2.3.1 Central Treatment for Copper 141
4.4.2.4.1 Treatment for Copper 142
4.4.3.1.1 POU Treatment for Alachior 145
4.4.3.2.1 POE Treatment for Alachior 146
4.4.3.3.1 Central Treatment for Alachlor 147
4.4.3.4.1 Treatment for Alachior 148
4.4.4.1.1 POE Treatment for Radon to 300 .pCiIL with Activated Carbon 151
4.4.4.1.2 POE Treatment for Radon to 300 pCifL with Aeration 152
4.4.4.1.3 POE Treatment for Radon to 300 pCi/L 153
4.4.4.2.1 Central Treatment for Radon to 300 pCi/L with Activated Carbon 154
4.4.4.2.2 Central Treatment for Radon to 300 pCiIL with Aeration 155
4.4.4.2.3 Central Treatment for Radon to 300 pCi/L 156
4.4.4.3.1 Treatment for Radon to 300 pCi/L 157
4.4.5.1.1 POE Treatment for Radon to 1,500 pCiIL with Activated Carbon 160
4.4.5.1.2 POE Treatment for Radon to 1,500 pCi/L with Aeration 161
4.4.5.1.3 POE Treatment for Radon to 1,500 pCi/L 162
4.4.5.2.1 Central Treatment for Radon to 1,500 pCi/L with Activated Carbon 163
4.4.5.2.2 Central Treatment for Radon to 1,500 pCiIL with Aeration 164
4.4.5.2.3 Central Treatment for Radon to 1,500 pCi/L 165
4.4.5.3.1 Treatment for Radon to 1,500 pCiIL 166
4.4.6.1 .1 POE Treatment for Trichioroethylene with Activated Carbon 169
4.4.6.1.2 POE Treatment for Trichioroethylene with Aeration 170
4.4.6.1.3 POE Treatment for Trichioroethylene 171
4.4.6.2.1 Central Treatment for Trichioroethylene with Activated Carbon 172
4.4.6.2.2 Central Treatment for Trichioroethylene with Aeration 173
4.4.6.2.3 Central Treatment for Trichioroethylene 174
4.4.6.3.1 Treatment for Trichioroethylene 175
vi
-------
FIGURES (continued)
4.4.7.1.1 POU Treatment for Nitrate with Anion Exchange .. 178
4.4.7.1.2 POU Treatment for Nitrate with Reverse Osmosis .. 179
4.4.7.1.3 POU Treatment for Nitrate .. 180
4.4.7.2.1 POE Treatment for Nitrate with Anion Exchange .. 181
4.4.7.2.2 POE Treatment forNitrate with Reverse Osmosis .. 182
4.4.7.2.3 POE Treatment for Nitrate .. 183
4.4.7.3.1 CentraL Treatment for Nitrate with Anion Exchange .. 184
4.4.7.3.2 Central Treatment for Nitrate .. 185
4.4.7.4.1 Treatment for Nitrate .. 186
v i
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AA Activated alumina
Ag Silver
Al Aluminum
As Arsenic
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
AWWA American Water Works Association
AX Anion exchange
Ba Barium
BRAA Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik, and Associates
CaCO 3 Calcium carbonate
CAM Cellulose acetate membrane
Cd Cadmium
CDC Centers for Disease Control
Cr Chromium
Cu Copper
CX Cation exchange
DBA Diffuse bubble aeration
DBCP Dibromochioropropane
DCE Dichloroethylene
DCP Dichioropropane
DWRD Drinking Water Research Division (of U.S. EPA)
EBCT Empty bed contact time
EDB Ethyldibromide
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
F Fluoride
Fe Iron
GAC Granulated activated carbon
gpd Gallons per day
gpm Gallons per minute
GWCTF Ground Water Contamination Task Force
Hg Mercuiy
HPC Heterotrophic plate count
IDEM Indiana Department of Environmental Management
IEPA Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
IX Ion exchange
K Potassium
LCWQID Lake Carmel Water Quality Improvement District
MCL Maximum contaminant level
eq Milliequivalent
mg Milligram
ix
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (continued)
Mg Magnesium
Mo Molybdenum
Na Sodium
Ni Nickel
NPL National Priorities List
NSF National Sanitation Foundation
O&M Operation and maintenance
P Phosphorous
PAC Powdered activated carbon
Pb Lead
PCE Perchioroethylene
pCi Picocuries
POE Point-of-entry
POU Point-of-use
PPI Producer Price Index
psi Pounds-per-square-inch
PTA Packed tower aeration
PVC Polyvinyichioride
Rn Radium
Rn Radon
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RO Reverse osmosis
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
Se selenium
Si Silicon
SID Solano Irrigation District
SPC Standard plate count
TCA Trchloroethane
TCE Trichioroethylene
TDS Total dissolved solids
TFM Thin film membrane
ThA Tiskiliwa Homeowners Association
TOC Total organic carbon
WDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
WQA Water Quality Association
Zn Zinc
x
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To provide small water systems with greater flexibility, the 1996 Amendments to the Safe
Drinking Water Act require the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection
Agency to create a list of affordable technologies and treatment techniques that will reduce
contaminants in drinking water to meet all maximum contaminant levels established by the
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. The Administrator is required to consider point-
of-entry (POE) and point-of-use (POU) treatment devices for inclusion on the list of affordable
technologies.
The purpose of this report is to develop broadly applicable cost equations for
implementing POE and POU treatment strategies in small communities. Cost equations were
developed and verified through a four step process.
I. Information regarding the experiences of small communities that used POE and
POU devices to remove contaminants found in their water supply was gathered
from the literature and analyzed. Performance data for various POE and POU
technologies were also collected.
2. Vendors of household water treatment equipment were contacted to obtain current
pricing information and to determine the factors that drive the costs of POE and
POU devices.
3. Cost equations were developed for treatment technologies that could be used to
reduce the concentration of various contaminants. These cost equations
incorporated nationally applicable wholesale pricing information, technical
expertise of original equipment manufacturers, and contractor expertise.
4. The cost equations developed in Step 3 were compared with the cost data derived
from the case studies and vendors. Any inconsistences were examined and
addressed.
POU treatment strategies were determined to be more cost effective than central
treatment for the reduction of arsenic (fewer than 75 households), copper (fewer than 30
households), alachlor (fewer than 70 households), and nitrate (fewer than 180 households). POE
treatment was determined to be more cost effective than central treatment for the reduction of
arsenic (fewer than 50 households), copper (fewer than 15 households), alachior (fewer than 10
households), and nitrate (fewer than 40 households).
xi
-------
Cost Evaluation of Small System Compliance Options
Point-of-Use and Point-of-Entry Treatment Units
1.0 Background and Entroduction
1.1 Regulatory Background
Centralized treatment of drinking water offers many advantages to communities and the
water systems that serve them. First, all water supplied to the community is treated to the
standards of the National Primazy Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs). Second, significant
economies of scale for both capital and operating costs exist for large communities. Third,
central treatment permits comprehensive control of water quality through operation,
maintenance, monitoring, and regulatory oversight. Fourth, the size of these operations permits
the extension of treatment cycles (decreasing costs) through the blending of water from more
than one source. However, the implementation of central treatment presents several problems,
especially for small or financially disadvantaged communities and water systems. First, capital
costs may prove prohibitive. Second, it may be difficult to retain a trained plant operator. Third,
disposal of waste brine or spent media from a central treatment plant may be extremely
expensive. Fourth, significantly more water will be treated to drinking water quality than may be
necessary for drinking and cooking purposes.
Amended in 1996, section 1412(b)(4)(E)(i) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
requires each national primary drinking water regulation which establishes a maximum
contaminant level [ MCLI, to list the technology, treatment techniques, and other means which
the Administrator finds feasible for purposes of meeting such maximum contaminant level.
Section 14 12(b)(4)(E)(ii) requires the Administrator to include in the list any technology,
treatment technique, or other means that is affordable, as determined by the Administrator in
consultation with the States, for small public water systems serving
(I) a population of 10,000 or fewer but more than 3,300;
(II) a population of 3,300 or fewer but more than 500; and
(III) a population of 500 or fewer but more than 25;
and that achieves compliance with the maximum contaminant level or treatment technique,
including packaged or modular systems and point-of-entry [ POE] or point-of-use [ POUI
treatment units. Thus, the Administrator is specifically required to consider POE and POU
devices as potentially affordable means of achieving compliance.
However, substantial limitations are placed upon the management, operation, and design
of POE and POU treatment units used to achieve compliance with an MCL or a treatment
technique. Section 1412(b)(4)(E)(ii) stipulates that, point-of-entry and point-of-use treatment
units shall be owned, controlled, and maintained by the public water system or by a person under
1
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
contract with the public water system to ensure proper operation and maintenance [ O&M] and
compliance with the maximum contaminant level or treatment technique. In addition, the use of
POU devices as a means to achieve compliance with a maximum contaminant level or treatment
technique required for a microbial contaminant (or an indicator of a microbial contaminant) is
explicitly forbidden. Note that the SDWA does not place restrictions on the use POE devices to
achieve compliance with a MCL or treatment technique required for a microbial contaminant or
an indicator of a microbial contaminant.
Section 1412(b)(4)(EXii) also states that no POE or POU unit may be included on the list
of affordable technologies, treatment techniques, and other means to achieve compliance with an
MCL or treatment technique unless it is equipped with mechanical warnings to ensure that
customers are automatically notified of operational problems.... If the American National
Standards Institute [ ANSI] has issued product standards applicable to a specific type of point-of-
entzy or point-of-use treatment unit, individual units of that type shall not be accepted for
compliance with a maximum contaminant level or treatment technique requirement unless they
are independently certified with such standards. In listing any technology, treatment technique,
or other means pursuant to this clause, the Administrator shall consider the quality of the source
water to be treated.
Despite the restrictions placed on their use as part of an alternative compliance strategy,
POU and POE devices offer several advantages over central treatment, especially for small
communities. First, costs per customer may be significantly lower. Second, water is selectively
treated (e.g., water used to water the lawn is not treated to the same degree as water used for
drinking or cooking purposes). Third, some forms of POE and POU treatment may provide
greater contaminant reduction than central treatment. This report will further explore some of
these advantages in the process of developing nationally applicable cost equations for the
implementation of a POE or POU treatment strategy in communities of various size.
Disadvantages associated with these treatment strategies (i.e., the greater complexity associated
with control of treatment, monitoring, maintenance, and regulatoiy oversight; higher monitoring
costs; and susceptibility to microbial growth) will also be considered in this report and the
development of cost equations.
1.2 Point-of-Entry and Point-of-Use Devices
POE and POU technologies may be used to treat a wide variety of contaminants. POE
and POU units apply processes similar to those used in central treatment, but on a smaller scale.
When properly managed, POE and POU technologies have the potential to be effective and
affordable alternatives to central treatment for small communities and water systems. Three
practices essential to the successful application of POE and POU technologies are:
implementation of appropriate technology, periodic maintenance of POU/POE units, and
effective monitoring of water quality.
2
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
1.2.1 Point-of-Use Devices
Only water intended for consumption (i.e., drinking or cooking) is treated by POU
devices. The technologies used in these devices can be packaged in several different forms:
countertop units, faucet-mounted units, in-line units, and line bypass units.
As its name implies, a countertop unit typically is placed on a table or counter next to the
tap that supplies water for drinking and cooking. Countertop devices require that water be
diverted into the unit directly from the tap, or that water be poured into the device from another
container. Since water must be transported between the tap and the countertop device, the
potential for accidental bacterial contamination is relatively high. Therefore these units may not
suffice as a compliance technology.
Units attached directly to a faucet typically do not allow substantial contact time between
the water and the treatment media. These units are more appropriate for controlling taste or odor
than for treating contaminants that may cause adverse health impacts because they are not
designed to provide a large margin of safety for consumers.
In-line POU units are generally plumbed directly into the piping that connects the cold
water supply to the faucet. Thus, the entire cold water supply from the tap is treated by these
units.
Line bypass units divert some water from the cold water supply to a treatment device.
POU devices of this type are often installed under the kitchen sink. An additional faucet
designed to dispense the treated water is frequently installed in conjunction with a line bypass
unit. Since these units do not treat the entire cold water supply, they generally last longer than
in-line POU units. The purpose of this report is to develop cost equations for in-line and line
bypass POU units since they demonstrate the most promise for affordably meeting the
requirements of the NPDWRs.
1.2.2 Point-of-Entry Devices
POE units treat all the water that enters a household, providing processed drinking water
at every tap. These devices have substantially greater capacity than POU units (i.e., they can treat
more water before contaminant breakthrough occurs) and are generally more complex. POE
devices require more maintenance than POU devices, but are preferable to PO1J units when
exposure to untreated water poses an acute, health risk. The literature reports that the indoor use
of contaminated water (particularly water containing volatile organic compounds [ VOCsI) can
lead to significant human exposure through non-ingestion routes such as inhalation following
volatilization (e.g., while showering) or direct contact. Indeed, modeling has shown that when
all water uses are considered, an inhabitants inhalation exposure may be substantially larger than
that from direct ingestion. Since all household water must be treated to ensure protection from
3
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT. Do Not Cite or Quote
inhalation an J contact exposure, POE units are preferred for the treatment of contaminants that
may cause health problems through non-ingestion pathways.
1.3 Treatment Processes Applied at the Point-of-Entry or the Point-of-Use
Many treatment technologies commonly used in central treatment plants have been
adapted for use in POE and POU applications. Activated alumina, activated carbon, aeration, ion
exchange, reverse osmosis, ultraviolet disinfection, and distillation are commonly incorporated
into POE or POU units. While this report focuses on the cost of implementing POE or POU
strategies using the first six technologies, all seven are briefly described below. These
descriptive pieces were developed using numerous sources, including Point-of-use/Point-of-entry
for Drinking Water Treatment (Lykins 1992) and the WaterReview Technical Brief (1994).
1.3.1 Activated Alumina
Activated alumina (AA) is a hydrated aluminum oxide (A1 2 0 3 ) that has been heat-treated
to a temperature of 300 to 700 degrees Celsius. AA particles are irregular and porous; they are
characterized by an extremely high surface area to volume ratio. Treatment with AA may be
described as an exchange/adsorption process, resulting from electrostatic attraction between
the alumina surface and the contaminant, and the sorptive properties of the AA granules.
AA can exchange anions and cations, however it is most commonly used to remove
contaminants that manifest as anions in water at standard temperatures and neutral pH. AA
technology is principally employed to remove fluoride from drinking water, although it can also
be used to remove arsenic, chromium, selenium, and inorganic mercury. The AA media must be
prepared (pre-ireated) properly take place in order to ensure the effectiveness of this treatment
technology. Pretreatment consists of a thorough backwash, followed by rinsing with dilute
sulfuric acid. The backwash removes dust and fine particles tha i may lead to cementation of the
AA (destroying its adsorptive capability), while the acid rinse lowers the pH of the AA to about
5.5 the level at which anion adsorption proceeds most rapidly and efficiently. A partial listing
of the anion selectivity sequence (in decreasing order of preference) of AA is presented below:
OH-, P0 3 3 , F, Si(OH) 3 0, As0 4 3 , [ Fe(CN) 6 1 , As0 3 3 , CrOp,
S0 4 2 , Cr 2 0, 2 , NO 2 , BY, Cl, NO 3 , Mn0 4 , C10 4 , CH 3 COO (Lake 1987).
As may be seen from the above list, fluoride is preferentially adsorbed by AA over ions
containing arsenic. Therefore, the presence of fluoride as a constituent in influent water will
reduce this technologys ability to remove arsenic. AA units have also proven effective for the
removal of selenium IV. AA does not effectively remove organic contaminants.
4
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
1.3.2 Activated Carbon
Activated carbon is the most widely used technology in POE and POU devices. These
units are typically the easiest POE and POU systems to use and maintain operating costs are
usually limited to filter replacement. Granular activated carbon (GAC) filters are the most
common application for activated carbon, although powdered activated carbon (PAC) filters may
also be incorporated in POE and POU treatment units. Either of these filters will remove a broad
range of organic contaminants (e.g., pesticides such as aldicarb and solvents such as
trichioroethylene [ ICE]) and some inorganic contaminants (e.g., radon) from drinking water
(Van Dyke 1987).
Activated carbon is characterized by a large surface area to volume ratio. This
characteristic enhances its ability to remove contaminants from water by adsorption, the
attraction and accumulation of contaminants on the carbons surface. The adsorption process is
influenced by the solubility of the contaminant and its affinity for the carbon surface.
It is important to note that POU GAC units must have their filters changed regularly in
order to prevent contaminant breakthrough. A 1987 presentation (Van Dyke 1987) included
information on the impact of competitive effects on GAC removal rates for various
contaminants. Essentially, GAC has a finite capacity for any one compound. When multiple
contaminants occur, they compete to some extent for the available sites on the carbon, reducing
the capacity for the less strongly adsorbed compound. In general, chlorinated compounds are
more readily adsorbed than non-chlorinated compounds. The presence of double bonds within a
compound increases adsorbability. Finally, the more hydrophobic (i.e., the less water soluble) a
compound is, the higher its rate of adsorption by GAC. Therefore, the presence of carbon
tetrachloride or chloroform in a water source may limit the efficacy of alachlor removal by GAC
since it will preferentially adsorb carbon tetrachloride and chloroform over alachior. Influent
water quality should be thoroughly tested prior to application of a carbon system (see section
1.5.3). The performance of activated carbon devices also depends on internal flow patterns, flow
rate (or contact time), and raw water quality. Activated carbon is not a generic commodity, and
its source (e.g., coal, coconut shell, etc.) and the method in which it is prepared significantly
affects its selectivity and capacity.
Activated carbon removes chlorine with great efficiency. In the absence of a chlorine
residual, bacteria may quickly multiply, especially in the small, nutrient rich pore spaces of GAC.
Numerous studies have documented the colonization of carbon filters by bacteria (Geldereich
1985, Reasoner 1987). While no illness has been attributed to bacterial colonization of POU or
POE units, it is generally recommended that carbon filters be replaced frequently (before
bacterial populations can build up) or that some sort of post-treatment disinfection be
implemented for POE GAC units. See section 1.4 for more information about the potential for
bacterial contamination of carbon units.
5
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Silver has been suggested as a means of reducing bacterial colonization of carbon filters.
However, while silver has been found to inhibit the growth of bacterial populations after periods
of unit disuse, PAC filters impregnated with silver have not reduced bacteria levels more
effectively than standard PAC filters during periods of more frequent water use (Regunathan
1987).
1.3.3 Aeration
In a process known as air stripping, contaminants are transferred from water to air.
Saturated air is then vented into the atmosphere. The two types of air stripping that are most
frequently used are packed tower aeration (PTA) and diffuse bubble aeration (DBA).
1.3.3.1 Packed Tower Aeration
PTA systems rely upon the force of gravity and mass transfer to remove contaminants
from water. Water introduced at the top of a column flows down it while air is forced upward by
a mechanical blower. The column contains packing (often molded plastic or ceramic) that
increases the area of the air-liquid interface and enhances mass transfer. Contaminants are
transferred from the water to the air, which is then vented to the atmosphere. PT has proven
effective in removing VOCs and other gases (e.g., radon and methane) from drinking water
(Nevada Division of Water Planning 1984). This technology is frequently used in conjunction
with activated carbon to reduce particularly high concentrations of VOCs. PTA is not effective
in treating inorganic compounds or microbial contaminants.
Water must be repressurized after PTA treatment in order to maintain adequate household
pressure. Expensive equipment is required for this process. Repressurization equipment and the
blower draw large amounts of electricity and must operate for a substantial part of each day.
Thus, electrical costs are high for PTA treatment. In addition, if the PTA unit is not adequately
ventilated (e.g., it is housed in an insulated shed without an adequate exhaust fan), contaminant
removal efficiency will decrease due to mass transfer constraints (i.e., less of the contaminant
will be removed from raw water by feed air already saturated with the contaminant). Therefore it
is necessazy to provide for adequate dispersal of the exhaust gases.
Due to the size of these units (typically more than nine feet in height), PTA may not be
applied as a POU installation. In addition, fan noise may limit the suitability of this technology
for use in residential areas. Air quality regulations in certain localities may also prevent the
implementation of these units since large quantities of a contaminant are vented into the air.
1.3.3.2 Djffi se Bubble Aeration
DBA is a second generation technology designed to overcome many of the problems
associated with the use of PTA for household application. In a DBA system, water flows through
6
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
an enclosed box while air is bubbled through the box. Contaminants are transferred from the
water to the air and then vented outside. The contaminant removal efficiency of DBA systems is
comparable to that of PTA systems. Like PTA systems, post-treatment repressurization is
required to maintain adequate household pressure for DBA systems. However, efficiencies of
DBA technology permit less expensive system operation. Additionally, DRA units are not
subject to freezing.
A system suitable for treating up to 18 gallons per minute (gpm) is only 0.6 meters wide,
1.2 meters long, and 0.6 meters in height. Nonetheless, due to the capital cost of DBA units and
their accompanying repressurization systems, these systems are only installed for POE
applications.
1.3.4 Ion Exchange
Ion exchange (IX) technology relies on the exchange of charged ions in water for
similarly charged ions on a resin surface. There are two types of IX: cation exchange (CX)
which replaces positively charged ions, such as calcium, iron, and magnesium with sodium ions;
and anion exchange (AX) which replaces negatively charged ions such as sulfate, nitrate and
chloride. The resins are synthetic polymers (polyelectrolytes) and react much as acids, bases, or
salts. However, only the cations and anions are free to take part in chemical reactions.
Commercially available DC units usually contain a mixture of anion and cation exchange resins.
Although most inorganic compounds can be removed with IX technology, most organic
compounds commonly found in drinking water cannot (Gumerman 1984). Moreover, IX units
are susceptible to fouling from iron, magnesium, and copper. Channels may develop in the resin
bed if the pressure drop across the bed is too high. This may permit water to pass through the
unit without adequate contact with the treatment media. Periodic backwashing will help prevent
fouling of the media bed and will remove sediment build-up.
CX systems are most often used to remove minerals that contribute to water hardness
such as calcium and magnesium. Thus, CX units are commonly referred to as water softeners.
UnitS equipped with CX technology have also been shown to effectively treat barium, cadmium,
copper, zinc, manganese, chromium (III), iron (II), lead, mercury, and radium (Gumerman 1984).
When the resin bed of a CX system is exhausted, it may be regenerated by flushing the resin with
a highly concentrated salt solution (sodium chloride).
Studies conducted at the University of Wisconsin, Madison and the National Sanitation
Foundation (NSF) demonstrated that water softeners caused no problems in the operation of
anaerobic or aerobic home waste treatment plants. The waste brine was not found to have any
negative effect on the biological decomposition action, and the hydrologic load added to the
system during regeneration was roughly equivalent to the discharge of a washing machine. This
7
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
additional discharge is only a problem where the septic field is poorly designed or constructed
(CO1/WWWebstore 1 998a).
Although the use of water softeners has not been found to disrupt the operation of septic
tanks, several communities have banned the use of POE CX units. The communities opted to
forbid the use of these units due to the high concentrations of salt in water treated by CX
technology. Almost all of the salt necessary to recharge the units eventually fmds its way into the
municipal waste water system. Thus, even small communities may find that the combined
discharge from all households would exceed the systems ability to eliminate salt.
It is well known that excessive sodium consumption may result in negative health effects.
However, since only about IS O mg of sodium are present in one liter of water softened from 10
grains per gallon (gpg) of hardness, even an individual on a low sodium diet (3,000 mg/day) is
unlikely to run into difficulties since he or she would need to drink 20 liters of water in order to
exceed the recommended level (COI/WWWebstore 1998b). Nonetheless, people with high
blood pressure and/or heart disease are advised to consult with theirphysician to determine if
their maximum allowable intake of sodium will be exceeded by using a home water softener
(Michigan State University Extension 1997).
AX is used for dealkalization (bicarbonate removal) and nitrate treatment. AX also has
been proven effective for treating arsenic, chromium, selenium, sulfate, and chloride (Gumerman
1984). The resins used in AX systems may be regenerated by passing an acid solution through
the resin bed.
Much like AA, AX resins preferentially remove certain contaminants. Therefore, the
removal efficiency of an AX system will depend upon the type and concentration of anions in the
influent. For example, sulfates are preferentially removed over nitrates. Thus, communities
must be especially careful to test influent water quality prior to application of an AX system (see
section 1.5.3.
1.3.5 Reverse Osmosis
Reverse osmosis (RO) systems pass water through a synthetic, semipermeable membrane
that rejects compounds based on their molecular properties and the characteristics of the RO
membrane. The membrane allows water molecules to pass but blocks most dissolved and
suspended molecules. Several types of RO membranes are used in POE and POU treatment
devices. The most common are cellulose acetate membranes (CAMs) and thin film membranes
(TFMs). While CAMs are more resistant to membrane deterioration from chlorine than TFMs,
they are not as widely used today. Recent manu1 cturing and design innovations mean that
Level recommended by the American Heart Association.
8
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
TFMs may now be used to treat water up to 45 degrees Celsius and ranging in pH from 4.0 to
11.0 (Waypa 1997). In addition, TFMs ale generally preferred to CAMs due to their superior
contaminant removal rates, especially in communities with low system pressure.
RO removes inorganic contaminants such as arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium,
copper, fluoride, lead, mercury, nitrate, radium, selenium, silver, chlorides, and sulfates. Organic
compounds with high molecular weights, total dissolved solids (TDS), turbidity, bacteria, and
viruses have also been removed by RO units (Gumerman 1984, Van Dyke 1987). Units often
have a particulate pre-filter to reduce fouling and extend membrane life. A GAC post-filter is
also commonly included in RO units to remove organic compounds of low molecular weight and
to improve the taste of treated water. RO membranes that are sensitive to chlorine may require
GAC pre-tilters. Since RO units treat water at a slow rate, an RO system often includes a
pressurized storage tank to ensure the availability of treated water on demand.
RO contaminant removal becomes more physically efficient with increased membrane
size. Both POE and central RO units use larger membranes than POU RO units. However,
though superior contaminant removal is achieved by the larger units, POE RO poses several
problems. The brine waste from these units contains much higher contaminant concentrations.
Indeed, this waste may need to be disposed of as ha7.ardous material depending upon State
regulations. Additionally, water treated by RO is extremely aggressive and may corrode metal
pipes. Thus post-treatment (such as pH adjustment) may be required.
High levels of water hardness tend to reduce membrane efficacy. Moreover, although
providing impressive protection in most situations, RO units may not be the opthnal treatment
technology in arid or water-limited regions since much of the water that is flushed against the RO
membrane is wasted in the course of treatment.
1.3.6 Ultraviolet Light
Disinfectants are used to control microbiological contaminants such as algae, bacteria,
viruses, and cysts. Common POU and POE disinfectant technologies include ultraviolet light,
ozone, chlorine, and silver impregnated carbon. Ultraviolet light (UV) is the simplest and most
popular POU/POE disinfection alternative. One of the major advantages of UV technology is
that it disinfects without the addition of chemicals. UV light does not expose users to any
harmful products, does not impart any taste or odor to water, presents no danger of overdose, and
works rapidly. The equipment requires little maintenance, and changes in the systems flow rates
do not prevent adequate disinfection. While UV effectively kills most organisms, cysts (such as
those of Cryptosporidium parvium and Giardia lambia) are impervious (Garoll 1988, Lorenzo-
Lorenzo 1993). High levels of turbidity in the influent also limits the effectiveness of UV
treatment. Therefore, a particulate pre-filter should be incorporated in any UV system.
9
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Qo Not Cite or Quote
As mentioned in section 1.1, section I412(b)(4)(E)(ii) of the SDWA explicitly prohibits
the use of POU units for compliance with a [ n] MCL or treatment technique requirement for a
microbial contaminant Therefore, although UV provides effective protection from most
microbial contaminants, it must be used in conjunction with a treatment device that employs a
different technology to qualify as a POU alternative to central treatment because it is ineffective
in treating organic or inorganic contaminants. UV devices are often incorporated in POE GAC
units to provide post-treatment disinfection, eliminating the danger of bacterial contamination.
See section 1.4 for additional information on this issue.
1.3.7 Distillation
Distillation is a process that uses evaporation to purify water. Unlike the continuous
flow technologies listed above, distillation treats water in batches. A batch process device treats
one batch of water at a time and typically is not connected directly to the household water supply.
POU units of this type are frequently installed as countertop units.
The distillation process involves several steps. First, water is poured into a boiling tank.
As the water is heated, impurities with low boiling points and dissolved gasses are turned into
vapors and are exhausted through a vent. Water then boils, sending steam through a condensing
coil. Water is cooled by air or by cold water, condenses, and flows into a container for storage.
The majority of contaminants are left behind in the boiling chamber. The boiling chamber is
then flushed either manually or automatically. Residential distillation units use either air cooled
or water cooled condensers. The air-cooled units waste less water, generally experience fewer
service problems, and are typically easier to install and operate. While water-cooled units require
8 to 15 gallons of raw water to produce 1 gallon of treated water, air-cooled units produce almost
one gallon of treated water for every gallon of raw water.
Distillation is most effective in removing inorganic contaminantssucb as metals,
minerals, nitrates, and particulates. Cysts, most bacteria, and some viruses can be killed by the
high temperatures used in this process. Organisms that survive are separated from the water as
steam rises from the tank. Distillation effectiveness in removing an organic compound depends
on the compounds physical characteristics such as its water solubility and boiling point.
Like RO units, distillation units frequently include particulate pre-filters (to reduce the
sediment introduced into the boiling chamber) and GAC post-filters (to remove any organic
contaminants that remain after distillation treatment and to improve the taste of treated water).
Even when equipped with particulate pre-filters, distillation units suffer from scale build-up and
thus require frequent maintenance to maintain efficacy. Operating costs for distillation units are
high due to their high electrical demands (about 3 kilowatt-hours of electricity are required to
produce each gallon of treated water). Implementation costs for distillation units are not
discussed in this report.
10
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
1.4 Bacteriological Contamination
Heterotrophic bacteria, bacteria that rely on organic compounds for their nutrient
requirements, have been found to colonize GAC filters (Den Blanken 1982, Rice 1982, Bellen
1985, Ge ldreich 1985). Densities exceeding hundreds of thousands of bacteria per milliliter have
been observed in the effluent of GAC filters (Dufour 1987). The bacterial population in the
effluent of P0 1 ) GAC units was found to be approximately one order of magnitude greater than
the bacterial population in untreated water (Regunathan 1987).
The growth of heterotrophic bacteria in treatment devices has caused some concern about
the health risk that these bacteria may pose to water users. Some heterotrophic bacteria found in
drinking water treated by POE and POL l units have been associated with nosocomial infections
and illnesses. Infections of this kind usually are caused by bacteria that are avirulent or have
limited virulence, which inflict damage on weakened hosts. However, research suggests that
ingestion of these bacteria does not have acute health effects on healthy individuals (Mood
1987). Nonetheless, the presence of bacteria may indicate a potential pathway for exposure to
pathogenic organisms. Further, since GAC treatment systems are likely to be found in homes
where infants, elderly, or other infection-prone persons reside, bacterial colonization is a matter
of concern. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted two studies in
response to these health concerns. These studies are summarized in the next two sections. One
study focused on the effects of ingestion of and dermal exposure to water from POU systems
(EPA 1980, Calderon 1987). The second study focused on the health consequences of ingestion
and inhalation of water (i.e., steam from showers) treated by POE systems (Bell 1984). Neither
of these studies demonstrated a connection between exposure to treated water and an increased
incidence of illness.
1.4.1 Bacterial Study of Point-of-Use Systems
Faucet-mounted and line bypass POLl GAC filters were tested for the presence of
bacteria. The study group consisted of households that had one of these POLl filtration systems,
while the control group received filters equipped with blank cartridges. Over a H-month period,
water samples were collected and analyzed for signs of an elevated bacteria count. In addition,
subjects were asked to keep health diaries. Information on the subjects health was collected
from these diaries, statements by subjects physicians, and survey responses.
The results of this study showed that line bypass and faucet-mounted P01.) filters were
colonized by heterotrophic plate bacteria. However, there was no evidence of increased levels of
skin or gastrointestinal disorders among the study group. The researchers concluded that neither
ingestion of, nor skin contact with, water filtered by a POU GAC unit constituted a risk factor for
the study population. However, the health effects on sensitive sub-populations such as imniuno-
compromised individuals, the elderly, and infants were not specifically examined in this study.
11
-------
Cost Evaluation oJPOU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
1.4.2 Bacterial Study of Point-of-Entry Systems
The second EPA study involved 167 households. Of these, 87 households served as a
control group and 80 households comprised the study group. The households in the study group
already had POE GAC filtration in place, whereas the households in the control group did not
filter their water. Both groups received water from the same central treatment plant. Researchers
analyzed hot and cold water samples monthly and took a survey to determine the various ways in
which subjects were exposed to filtered water. Exposure was found to result from ingestion,
inhalation of steam, and derrnal contact. As in the POU study (see section 1.4.1), subjects were
asked to keep health diaries. Information on the subjects health was collected from these
diaries, statements by subjects physicians, and survey responses.
The results of the study indicated that the POE carbon filters were colonized by
heterotrophic bacteria. However, no adverse health effects were attributed to the bacteria. The
researchers concluded that exposure to POE GAC filtered water through any of the pathways
detailed above did not constitute a risk factor for the study population. As with the POU study
summarized in section 1.4.1, the health effects on sensitive sub-populations such as immuno-
compromised individuals, the elderly, and infants were not specifically examined in this study.
1.4.3 Additional Discussion
It is important to recognize that bacterial colonization of media beds is not unique to POU
or POE treatment systems. Central treatment systems, however, normally provide disinfection
after treatment. There have been no verified reports of waterborne illness resulting from
consumption of contaminated water from GAC or other POU treatment devices. However, it is
important to avoid using water of poor or unknown microbiological quality when instituting a
POE or POU treatment strategy. If a system must rely on source water that is suspected of
containing microbiological organisms, rigorous disinfection should be part of the water systems
treatment strategy. Consumers should be instructed to run water at full flow for at least 30
seconds before use after a prolonged period of quiescence to avoid ingesting bacteria easily
washed off the fl!ter or treatment media. Periodic backwashing of treatment devices will also
reduce levels of bacteria in treated water (those bacteria most easily washed off the filter or
media will be removed).
13 Management Issues
A water system must address several issues before implementing an alternative
compliance strategy. Regardless of the compliance strategy it chooses to pursue, the system
remains responsible for providing water that reliably and consistently meets the NPDWRs. The
simple installation of POE or P0 1.1 devices does not absolve the system from this principal
responsibility. To ensure that the system meets its responsibility, the SOWA places substantial
12
-------
Cost Evaluation ofPOU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
limitations upon the management, operation, and design of POE and POU treatment units that
may be used to achieve compliance with an MCL or a treatment technique.
As mentioned in section 1.1, section 141 2(b)(4)(E)(ii) of the SDWA stipulates that,
point-of-entry and point-of-use treatment units shall be owned, controlled, and maintained by
the public water system or by a person under contract with the public water system to ensure
proper operation and maintenance and compliance with the maximum contaminant level or
treatment technique. While this section does not require the water system to perform all
maintenance or management functions itself, it does emphasize the requirement that the water
system retain ultimate responsibility for the quality of all the water it provides to households
within its service area. Water systems are free to subcontract one or more aspects of the day-to-
day management of the treatment devices used in a POU or POE strategy, and may provide
significant price savings for their customers by doing so, as long as they maintain administrative
oversight over all operations. Generally, an established water utility can provide the
administrative oversight necessary to implement an alternative treatment strategy safely and
responsibly.
Management of Point-of-Use Drinking Water Treatment Systems (Bellen 1985) discusses
issues critical to the successful management of a POU treatment system. Although this report
focuses on the implementation of a POU treatment strategy, the same issues apply to the
implementation of a POE treatment strategy. The principal issues reported by Bellen are
discussed in the following five sections, and the management assumptions used in the cost
analysis of POE and POU strategies are described briefly. A more detailed discussion of the
assumptions used in this report is presented in section 4.
1.5.1 Device Selection
Systems must consider many factors when selecting POE or POU devices. These factors
include the microbiological, physical, and chemical characteristics of their source water and the
features offered by different manufacturers and technologies. For example, the presence or
absence of competing ions (such as sulfate) greatly affects the efficacy of AX treatment for
nitrate. Consultation with private water quality consultants, local health departments, and the
State agency responsible for water quality is warranted and highly recommended.
Although the use of POU devices to achieve compliance with a maximum contaminant
level or treatment technique required for a microbial contaminant (or an indicator of a microbial
contaminant) is explicitly forbidden by section 1412(b)(4)(E)(ii) of the SDWA, it is important
to ensure that neither POE nor POU devices increase the potential risk to public health from
microbiological activity (see section 1.4). Since it is difficult to prevent the colonization of
treatment devices, even when the central water supply is chlorinated, due to the ubiquitous
presence of bacteria, appropriate post-device disinfection should be practiced.
13
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Therefore, the cost of a post-treatment UV disinfection unit was included in the cost of all
POE GAC units for the purposes of the cost analysis. Disinfection units were determined to be
unnecessary for other POE devices since they are not as readily colonized by bacteria. Moreover,
since the GAC filters used in POU units would be changed too frequently to permit the build-up
of large bacterial populations, it was determined that no post-device disinfection was necessary
for these units. As backwashing has been found to decrease post-device bacterial exposure (see
section 1.4.3), all POE (AC units were assumed to be equipped with backwash capabilities.
Section 4 provides more information on assumptions used for the cost analysis presented in this
report.
SDWA section 1412(b)(4)(E)(ii) stipulates that if the American National Standards
Institute [ ANSI] has issued product standards applicable to a specific type of point-of-entry or
point-of-use treatment unit, individual units of that type shall not be accepted for compliance
with a maximum contaminant level or treatment technique requirement unless they are
independently certified with such standards. In listing any technology, treatment technique, or
other means pursuant to this clause, the Administrator shall consider the quality of the source
water to be treated. Six ANSI/NSF standards have been established for POE and POU drinking
water treatment devices. Standards have been set for aesthetic effects (ANSI/NSF 42), health
effects (ANSI/NSF 53), CX water sofleners (ANSI/NSF 44), RO treatment systems (ANSI/NSF
58), UV microbiological treatment systems (ANSI/NSF 55), and distillation systems (ANSI/NSF
62). The standards are voluntary consensus standards established by representatives of
government, user groups, and industry.
Under the standards, the performance of treatment devices is tested against
manufacturers contaminant removal claims. The standards include requirements for materials,
design, construction, hydrostatic performance, and product information. All testing evaluations
are conducted in accordance with standard protocol. Manufacturing facilities are subject to at
least one unannounced inspection annually. Manufacturers are not required to adhere to these
standards, but products shown to conform with the requirements of the standard are listed in a
publicly available publication and may display the NSF seal.
The Water Quality Association (WQA), an organization representing manufacturers of
POU and POE treatment devices, has developed recommended industry standards for household
and commercial water filters (S-200-73), as well as RO systems (S-300-84). The American
Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) also provides standard tests that may be used to
determine the operating characteristics of RO membranes (D4194-82), GAC (D3922-80), and
particulate mixed-bed IX materials (D3375-82). In accordance with the statutory requirement, it
was assumed that communities would select only POE or POU devices that were certified under
NSF Standard 53 (health effects) and the appropriate technology standard(s) (e.g., ANSI/NSF 58
for RO devices).
14
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
To comply with SDWA section 1412(b)(4)(E)(ii), a water system must select POE or
POU units that are equipped with mechanical warnings to ensure that customers are
automatically notified of operational problems. To this end, the cost of a water meter equipped
with an automatic shut-off valve was included in the price of all treatment devices considered in
the cost analysis. RO units were assumed to be equipped with an in-line TDS monitor instead of
a water meter since it was demonstrated in the San Ysidro case study (see section 2.1.2) that
conductivity could be used to determine the breakthrough of inorganic contaminants such as
fluoride and arsenic. All UV elements included as part of POE treatment devices were assumed
to be designed with a small peep-hole that permits easy verification that the UV bulbs are
operational.
In selecting a treatment device, a system should consider the experience and viability of
manufacturers in conjunction with device performance and price. Established vendors may be
able to provide significant discounts for volume purchases and product guarantees. Water
systems should collect warranty information for each component of a treatment device before
committing to a particular technology or manufacturer. Since water systems have generally been
held responsible for property damage resulting from leaks due to defective equipment, improper
installation, or accidents, the insurance coverage provided by a manufacturer after the device is
installed may also affect the lifetime cost of a treatment unit.
1.5.2 Device Installation
Once a particular device is selected, a water system must address the task of installing
that device in each household within its service area. Equipment installation may be performed
by factory-trained dealers, plumbing contractors (often recommended by equipment dealers), or a
water utility employee. Although systems might need to authorize installers to buy additional
materials (e.g., fittings) to complete installations, it was assumed for the purposes of this analysis
that only water system personnel would install the equipment and that no additional materials
would be necessary for proper installation.
Management (Bellen 1985) recommended that a water system contract with vendors to
retain responsibility for the performance of the POE and POU devices for at least a short period
of time. This contract would allow for minor adjustments and for the training of water system
personnel in maintenance procedures. However, the cost associated with this type of extended
service was not included in the cost analysis due to the lack of data on the cost of such a service
contract. The vendor was assumed to provide water system personnel with the necessary basic
training to permit system personnel to service units. By contracting with one vendor for unit
purchase and/or installation, a system may be able to reduce costs through a quantity discount.
This discount was incorporated in the cost analysis.
When soliciting price quotes from installers, systems should provide them with as much
detailed information as possible about the water problems faced by the system and the
15
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
characteristics of its housing stock. Water systems should also be mindful of local plumbing
codes when installing treatment devices. Depending on the size of the treatment device,
homeowners may want units installed under-the-sink, at the property line, or in the basement.
The latter two options will raise the cost of installation. However, installation at the property line
may obviate the necessity of coordinating sampling and maintenance with homeowners. It was
assumed that all POU units would be installed under-the-sink, while POE units would be
installed in the basement or garage of all households within the community.
1.5.3 Operation and Maintenance
Proper maintenance of POU and POE devices includes timely replacement of media,
cartridges, filters, and modules. The timing of these replacements depends on the
microbiological, chemical, and physical properties of the communitys water supply and the use
patterns of water customers. If media, cartridges, filters, or modules are not replaced prior to
exhaustion, the device will no longer provide treatment and may, in extreme cases, increase the
contaminant level of the treated water as contaminants leach from the media.
To ensure an adequate safety margin for consumers and the timing of replacements in the
most cost-efficient manner possible, pilot testing should be perfonned on one or more units to
determine their capacity to treat the communitys water. Devices should be tested on the
community water supply at a continuous flow to determine the volume of water that a device can
treat before breakthrough (i.e., the detection of a contaminant above desired levels [ i.e., the
MCLI in the treated water) occurs. This test will establish the capacity of a device and typically
will take only a few days to perform.
Devices should be monitored for biological contamination, which may result from the
installation procedure or from source water contamination. Samples from each device were
analyzed for total coliform in addition to the principal contaminant of concern. The sampling
regime selected by a water system significantly affects the costs of monitoring. Some tests, are
so expensive (e.g., TCE analysis costs $173 per sample) that it is more cost-effective to sample
less frequently and replace filters and cartridges more often. Once the capacity of a device is
established through pilot testing, monitoring can be curtailed until a device nears its capacity
threshold, thus reducing monitoring costs. For this reason, an aggressive replacement strategy
was assumed for the purposes of this analysis (typically quarterly for POU and yearly for POE
see section 4). This assumption ensures the protection of public health while limiting the
necessity for sampling to once a year. To ensure that estimates of the effective life of treatment
devices remain accurate, the quality of the source water must continue to be monitored as part of
the water systems treatment strategy.
Water meters may be used by the water system to minimize the chance that breakthrough
will occur since water flow through the device will be automatically shut-off when a pre-
determined amount of water has been treated by the device. While it was assumed that a water
16
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
meter and shut-off valve were included for all devices, the frequent, periodic replacement of all
media, cartridges, and filters was also assumed for the purposes of this cost analysis.
Treatment devices must be monitored to ensure their proper operation. The structure of a
monitoring program depends on the community, the number of devices, the type of contaminant
being removed, the treatment method, and the logistics of the service area. State laws may
dictate the frequency and method of sampling.
Samples could be collected by a circuit rider operator, a vendor representative, staff from
a private lab, health department staft water utility stafi or a local resident. The advantages to
having a member of the water systems staff collect the sample is that he or she will be more
familiar with the community and the other residents than an out-of-town vendor or circuit rider.
For this reason, it was assumed that sampling would be carried out by water system personnel.
All individuals involved in sampling should be trained to ensure that the same procedures
are followed for each device to permit comparison of results throughout the community. The
water system should consult the appropriate regulatory agency for information on state-approved
sampling methods. It is generally considered appropriate to flush a POE or POU system before
testing to allow the system to reach a steady state condition before the water sample is drawn.
Systems should maintain records of sample collection sites, dates, and analytical results. These
administrative tasks were assumed to require one hour of labor for the water system per
household per year (see section 4.3.3).
One factor that the water system and the regulatory agency responsible for solid waste
disposal should consider in estimating O&M expenses is the type and quantity of waste produced
by a POE or POU device. The physical state of the wastewater, the wastewaters toxic or
b rdous properties, and the quantity of waste produced are all important considerations.
Disposal costs for POU devices were assumed to be zero due to their small size and their rapid
replacement (before contaminant build-up); they will not generally constitute a significant
contribution of waste to a landfill, in contrast, POE treatment units may require expensive
disposal methods. Spent media and waste brines from these units may require disposal as
ha sirdous waste. Media used to treat for radon or other radionuclides may need to be disposed
of as low-level radioactive waste. State and local regulatory authorities responsible for solid
waste disposal should be contacted by a water system contemplating the use of POE devices. All
disposal costs were omitted for the purposes of its cost analysis, since it was not possible to
estimate the disposal costs required by the operation of a central treatment plant within the scope
of this project (see section 4.3.1).
Systems also should consider other factors that would affect O&M costs of a POUIPOE
strategy. Examples include price discounts for long-term contracts, the proximity of the supplier,
availability of parts and services, and lab fees.
17
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
1.5.4 Public Relations and Education
The final key to managing a successful POU treatment system is to promote public
involvement and education. While the water system is responsible for maintaining all POU and
POE devices it chooses to install within a community, for a POE or POU treatment strategy to be
successful, owners must follow the recommended procedures for care of their treatment device.
Town meetings before the treatment device is chosen and then regularly after the household
treatment units are installed are one of the most successful tools for responding to residents
concerns and questions. Aspects of the water systems public education program could be
carried out during town meetings by guest speakers or demonstrations. State or local government
agencies may be able to assist in these educational activities. A newsletter which informs
residents of the fiscal and operating status of the system could be another important public
relations tool. This newsletter could be supported through a combination of advertisements, a
nominal subscription charge, or a surcharge on water rates.
The effect of the treatment device on the waters taste, odor, or color will have a
significant impact on public acceptance of P01.3 or POE technology. In general, waters taste,
odor, and color are much more noticeable to the public than the presence of potentially toxic
contaminants.
1.5.5 Economic Considerations
Despite the recommendation that POU treatment devices be installed at every faucet
dispensing potable water in the community (Bellen 1985), it was assumed that only one tap was
equipped with a POU unit for this cost analysis. As previously discussed, the SDWA
Amendments of 1996 specifically prohibit the use of POU devices for microbial contaminants.
The same rationale could be used for not listing POIJ devices as a compliance technology for
contaminants that cause acute health effects (e.g., nitrate) or contaminants that present a health
risk through inhalation (e.g., radon) or dermal contact (e.g., TCE). The cost of additional POU
units to provide coverage of all taps would be far greater than the cost of a single POE unit that
could provide protection at all taps within the household. An extensive public education
campaign could alert consumers to the need to use the treated tap for all drinking or cooking
purposes. However, the problems associated with ensuring the implementation of a public
education program for an acute contaminant in a small system may still eliminate POU treatment
as an option for some contaminants.
A large number of treatment devices would be needed to outfit an entire community.
Therefore, it is important for systems to consider their options for equipment ownership and
maintenance, and to negotiate with vendors to secure volume discounts. POU devices could be
owned and operated by the municipality or district, could be owned publicly and maintained
privately, leased by the municipality or district, privately owned, or owned by the water supplier.
Because rental costs were higher than purchase costs for the 10-year time frame of the cost
18
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
analysis, all units were assumed to be owned by the water system. The system must have the
right to access all treatment devices to monitor their performance and perform routine
maintenance. Further, it was assumed that the water system, in conjunction with local
authorities, would be able to pass legislation (similar to that described in the San Ysidro case
study in section 2.1.2) requiring homeowners to permit access to the treatment units and
prohibiting homeowners from disconnecting or tampering with the units.
Several funding options available to water systems may generate suflicient funds to pay
for the initial investment in POE or POU equipment. In many States, water districts and publicly
owned water utilities can issue bonds. Local banks, credit unions, and finance companies may
make loans to water systems that can demonstrate fiscal responsibility. However, banks, credit
unions, and finance companies almost always require the borrower to provide equity (typically an
asset with re-sale value) before they will make a loan. Since it is illegal in most states to sell
used water treatment equipment, and since few small water systems have substantial assets (e.g.,
land), many systems may be unable to provide adequate equity to secure a loan from private
sources. However, equipment distributors may be able to arrange for funding to purchase
equipment and may be able to help systems that lack equity to secure loans. Systems could also
consider renting or leasing equipment. Some rental agreements also provide the option to buy
the equipment. Water systems might choose to lease treatment devices since vendors frequently
include maintenance and monitoring in the lease agreement. However, the water system would
need to ensure that the vendor provided adequate maintenance because the system is ultimately
liable in cases of inadequate water quality.
A system could recover the costs of capital expenditures and the initial installation of
POE or POU devices through property assessment, taxation, or service fees. A successful
management plan must also examine water rates and adjust them to cover the full costs of
operation, monitoring, and maintenance. To estimate total treatment costs, systems should
develop models which amortize capital and installation costs while estimating expected
replacement costs. An average effective lifetime of 5 years was assumed for POU devices while
an average effective lifetime of 10 years was assumed for POE devices. Therefore, the capital
costs for these devices were amortized over 5 and 10 years respectively in the cost analysis.
Estimating the lifetime costs (including capital, installation, monitoring, maintenance, spare
parts, administrative, and replacement costs) of a technology is also valuable when choosing
among different types of POU and POE devices.
A systems monitoring costs depend on several factors, including source water quality,
method of treatment, laboratory availability, local regulations, and whether sampling is
conducted professionally or by volunteers. Systems can significantly reduce the costs of
monitoring by recruiting local volunteers to collect samples or by providing customers with
sample bottles which they mail or deliver to the district. For example, according to language in
the Lead and Copper Rule, uncertified individuals are permitted to take samples. These cost-
19
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
cutting methods are limited by the cooperation of customers, SDWA regulations, and by
sampling methods which require special collection or transportation requirements.
A POE and POU management plan needs to incorporate annual administrative costs (e.g.,
bookkeeping, billing, inventory control, office supplies, etc.) in the systems proposed budget.
Administrative costs can be reduced by the use of voluntary labor and/or by active homeowner
participation.
20
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
2.0 Case Studies
Cost, performance, and administrative data were gathered from field studies and
demonstration projects to help develop and corroborate the cost estimates for POE and POU
devices presented in this report (see section 4). Few studies or projects were identified despite an
extensive literature search. Discussions with Ben Lykins, an EPA expert, and several experts
within the industry verified that case studies on the application of POE technologies are
especially rare. However, several laboratory studies have recently been published in journals
such as the Journal A WWA. While these studies did not provide cost data, they did provide
useful information on the capabilities of various technologies to treat for different contaminants.
This section summarizes the available field studies and demonstration projects that
describe the application of POU and POE technologies in small communities. Other information
relevant to the task of developing cost data are also included in the summaries. Table 2.1
presents the cost data taken from these case studies.
Each summary includes information on the following topics, if available:
1. The contaminant(s) of concern (and its concentration in the raw water).
2. The applied treatment technology.
3. The number of households equipped with POE or POU treatment units
(i.e., the number of households served by the water system).
4. The administrative strategy used by the water system.
5. The monitoring plan used to ensure adequate protection of public health.
6. The maintenance schedule selected by the water system.
7. Details on the capacity and performance of the treatment units.
8. The capital and O&M costs for each unit.
9. The cost per gallon used.
10. The annual per household cost for implementing a POU or POE treatment
strategy. Where possible, estimates for the cost of a central treatment
strategy are also included.
2!
-------
Stepi
Literature Search and
Case Study Review
1
Figure 2.1: Study Design
Qualitative and Semi-Quantitative
Descnptions of Case Studies
:Step 2
Vendor Price Requests
First-Order Price Estimates
1. Step3
Refmed c 6st Analysis
/ :, Conceptual System Design Based on
:hfl fl Assumlitions and Te 1uilcal
Peiformance Data
Step4
. Cdst Equation VeriEcation
H
- es.
j 6 4minisfrative, Sampling, and ___
CσtSchedu1e
-------
Table 2.1: CapItal and Operation and Maintenance Cost Data --Case Studies
Type 01 Point of
Unit Application
Source
Contaminant
U
POU
Fu O. M ,E , 5.,e OR 198
U
POU
Gianennan (uS) 1983
AA POU
Number of
Houssi oida
(hh)
Purchase
Puce
($Ihh)
(jumerman (FL) 1983 Nsenic
Installation
Cost ($lhh)
AR FUU
U
POU
Tlea mtadFarim.AL 198
Fkiodd.lAta.nt
AA
POU
Papago Butte AZ 1985
FIUOIIdWA,sSnII
Contingency
Cost ($Ihh)
AA POU
140 $50
i
POU
Parkersblsg, IL 1985
U
POU
Bureau Junction. II. 1985
You and I TP. AZ 1985 Fk,ond.IAr,snic
$330 $120 $70
! °
NA
5382
595
5365
532
$507.
:5338
519
NA
3357.
.c
cenir 00
r lch 1990 . oaηp
. 10
5712
A( tentrai
S134 . . t $103
Ac Central
5301 519 NA 5520
5514 519 , NA ,:.5533;. -
5345 519 NA
Total Capital
Cost
(1997$Ihh)
Ainerliad Annual Annual Annual
Capital Costs Maintenance Sampling Cost Administrative
(19I7$lhhlyr) Cost ($Ihhlyr) ($Ihhlyr) Cost ($Ihhlyr)
Total Annual
OSM Cost
(1997$Ihhlyr)
Total Annual
Costs
(1997$lhhiyr)
Cost per 1.000
Gallons Treated
(1997$lKgaI)
Cost per 1,000
Gallons Used
(1997$IXgai)
aiur 543
( j000riat 1S9Z
5188
$103
$108
$94
8
$32
t3oodr 1992
5137
$369
DBCP
10
515
MA. 14 3414 . 5599 - r 5353.
532
15
$15
$411
5506
3462
$16 .
I
A
Central
Goodrich 1990
DBCP
25
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
:
!
°° !!°
! -
50
NP.
NP
Ne-.
NP.-
NP
, NP,
. N!
5413
5294
M93 ,
518,
$52
$32
$15
-
$459
$416
$13
NA
5429
5113
5321
531
$15
NP
NP
NP
I NP
. r NP
- .NP
5415
$32
NP NP NP NP NP
ii NR - NP
s s £5
$1,154
5 32.y
34W
$552
NP
N!
5440
570 - 13W
NP NP
582 5504
- . . NP t NP
$216
$56.12 ,
_
.
5276
5507
f J ,JCL w
P
$1642
.NP
NP NP NP 51.507 516
5185 58
rn, ,aa R i
NP
s468
s5 ,
5718
.577.
1 16
Central
Goodrich 1992
DBCP
20
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
$864
$9
5769
k .i$tI4 .. I
$395
$952, -- I
5943
Central
Goo*Ith.1992
DBCP
25
NP
NP-
NP
NP
NP
-94Pf
NP
NP.
NP
$727
. ,r$8
$4
-r.i5 .
55
Central
Goodrich 1992
DBCP
50
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
5432
POE
Goodr Ich. 1990
OBCP
10
CpKGT
CpKGT
CpKOT .
CpI83T
. CpKGT.
$981
-$215
- 518 .
S5fl
.Sl.O 4 Srr
POE
Goodrich 1990
DBCP
25
CpKGT
CpKGT
CpKGT
CpKGT
CpICGT
5281
5205
515
-
5501
$1,032
POE
Goodrdi. 1990
OBCP
. 50
Cpl83T
CpICGT
. CpKGT -
CpKGT
. CpKGT
CpKGT
- . CplCGT.
- CpKGL -
$258 -
3194 -
Sf5
$467
$999- r
51,341
$1,341
$1,331
$5
59 ,13 ,l. ,. ;
CpKGT
CpKGT
$281
$215
515
5511
POE
Goodrich 1992
OBCP
10
52,188
1WP
.
$14
$1225
POE
Goodrictt 1092
DBCP
15 .
$2,188
MP
CPKGT
CpKGT
5281
3215
315
$511
- Sf4 ,..
$1225 -
A POE
Goodrich 1992
DBCP
20
52,188
IINP
CPKGT
CpKGT
5281
5205
$15
.
$501
$14
51216
A POE
POE
Goodricfr 1992
Goodrich 1992
OBCP
DBCP
25
50
$2,188
$2,188
MP
iWP
CpICGT
CpKGT
CpI83T
CpKGT
CPICGT
CpKGT
5281
5258
5205
$194
$15
$15
$501
$467
51,331,-
$1,298
, , $14 )
513
, Sf&f8., 1
51185
POE
F,.sno, Ck 1990
DBCP
10
CPKGT
CpICGT
CpKGT
CpKOT
CPICGT
5281
$215
$15
$611
$894 -
- $4
$8,17
AC Central
Goodrich 1990
DCP
10
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
.
NP
NP
NP
$1,756
$17
$ 1604
Central
Goodrich 1990
DCP
25
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
$882
- p
$&O5.
Central
Goodrich 1990
DCP
50
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
3547
$5
5499
Central
Goodrich 1992
DCP
10
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
51,542
$18
$14.88
Aλ Central
oodrith 1992
DCP
15
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
$1,120
512
5 1023
Central
Goodrich 1992
OCP
20
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
$898
$9
$820
Central
Goodrich 1992
OCP
2$
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
5762
-
58
5698
TA Central
Goodrutit 1992
OCP
50
, NP
NP
NP
NP
NP.
NP
NP
NP
NP.
$468
$5
.34.28 1,)
POE
Goodrich 1990
DCP
10
CpKGT
CpKGT
CpKGT
CpKGT
CpKGT
$281
-
$301
315
5597
31,493
59
.
51383
POE
POE
Goodrich 1990
DCP
25
CPKGT
CpKGT
CpKGT
CPKGT
CpKGT
$281
$282
$15
5578
51.474
59
51348
CpKGT
CpKGT
CpKGT
CpKGT
5258
5263
515
5538
$1,432
59
51308
Goodrich 1990
DCP
50
CpKGT
POE
GoodrIch, 1992 -
,, DCP
10
$2, 188 .
iVoP
CpKGT
CpICGT
- C 9ICOT
$281-
5301
315
$597
$1,581
- $18 .
4 - $f 25 j
POE
Goodrich 1992
DCP
15
$2,188
iVoP
CpKGT
CpKGT
CpKGT
5281
5301
515
5597
$1,581
515
51426
POE
AC POE
Goodrich 1992
Goodrich 1992
- - OCP
DCP
10
25
52,188
52,188
- rAP
PAP
CpKGT
CpXGT
CPKGT
CpKGT
CpkG l
CpKGT
$281
$281
5282
5282
515 -
$15
$578
5578
$f,542
$1,542
518.
518
- i S 4 09-i
51409
AC POE
Goodrich. 1992
OCP
50 -
$2,188
PAP
CpKGT
. CpKGT
CpK9T
$258
$263
$15
$535.
$1.50?
$18.-
$1370
AC POE
Florida (Type I) 1987
EDB
I
$1,000
IWP
NA
51,252
5204
$890
$400
1WS
51,616
31,820
c
.
$17
51662
AC POE
Fiorida(TypeIi)1987
- EbB
--1
$1050
1WP
NA
$1,315
52 14
$400
IWS
$1,615
$1830
$17 r,
S15.T1 i.,
AC POE
VelaueSlatn(OACIO) teat
Radon
1
5828
5118
NA
$944
Sf54
$283
5152
515
$449
$603
$6
5550
AC POE VerS s(0AGt7)ISat - Radon
1
$1.07?
$118
NA
$1,193
5194
$283
$152
$15
$449
$643
$8
- $588 ,
AC POE VadeusStele.(OAC3O) ieee
Radon
1
$1,350
$116
NA
51,466
5239
5283
5152
515
5449
$688
55
5628
Table 2 1 .Cas. Studies
Page 1
-------
Point of
Source
Application
EPA Datital . (v as i seal VOC/Radon
I-
4 PC I alaiset 1 W- J ICE 1
POE EPA D.tibuI ( C1 5) liαf VOCelRadon
Pou α pA 5. , O I
POE EPADat.bsNt w ml t I
- EPA 5 8 d 1980 ______
POU Gumennan ( US) 19 _______
POU Ounemien ( PL) __
Table 2.1: Capital and Operation and Maintenance Cost Data Case Studies
Typed
Unit
AC
AC
AC
Contaminant
PUU Utanerman(US) 1983 1 SaCs
Number of
Households
hh
POU O anermea1 (PL) 1983 I 80CC
AC
Purchase
PRIce
($flih)
POU Ebbert (var cap) 19851 SOCe
In ats llai lor ,
Cost ($I 1III)
POU bPA Study 1905 Suce
!°
!°
i!
AC
AC
$270
$260
5120
Central L 1ons ( SOw lpe) 19921 ICE
Cii* Lv lw1om e) 19921 ICE . . - 1 50
ooo 1
160
$42
$95
150
AC
Ceritral
L 1s(TPw Ipe 1 ° L iCE 15O
NP
NP
HP
NP
NP
NP
AC
540 540 5411 $108 $52
$818
5321
5267
NP
Central
IC
contingency
Cost t58th )
Total Capital
Cost
(1997$lhh)
Asnodized Annual Annual Annual
Capital Costs Maintenance S.mpllng Coat AdmInIstratIve
(199?$Ibhlyr) Cost ($lhhlyr) (tlhhlyr) Cost ($mhlyr)
Total Annual
OEM Cost
11997$ihhlyr)
Total Annual
Coats
(1957$Ihhlyr)
Cost p., 1,000
Gallons Treated
(l99WKgaI )
Cost per 1,000
Gallons Ussd
(1997$IKgalI
NP
NP NP
5571
Gαodruch 1992
10
NP
NP
NP
ICE
.Cen901
NP
$211 5121 515 5347
NP
NP NP NP
AC
Central
Goodrldi 1990
ICE
25
NP
NP
lIP
NP
NP
NP
AC
Central
Goodrl*19 90
., TCE.
50.
NR
.tNP
N!
: , -
NP.
10
Central patn.mC .w lr Nv(sItl. 11571 TCE
110
TAC
TAC
TAC TAC
TAC TAC
TAC
TAC
TAC
51,
515
$303
3411
5376
NP
5205 $121 518 5340
5151 5251 5121 515 5386
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
$303 $466 $425
- NP
P
I,
NP
NP
: N! N!
NP
NP
NP NP NP
5432 sjv . 5394
7 10
NP
- NP
AC PCI J 0009 I - -TVE -.
NP
P .C
NP
NP-S
5490 -
NP
£3.73
5 . s :
NP
NP NP 5704 57
- $20295
3490
NP
!Ut taoo non
NP
NP
L 7
NP
AC
F
POE
000drldi 1992
NP
! NP 5798 58
AC
Central
Goodridi 1992 ICE
20
NP
- N F
NP
$2 ,!88
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
$871
59
5795
$6 if
5400
5 13ff
AC
Cull
Gxdrtrtt 1992 - ICE . - ,
25
jitP
,NP ,-
NP -
N 1
NP
NP
NP
NP
- $734
$8
A
Central
Goodnch 1992 TCE
- 50
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
$438
55
AC
- POE.
L )fAss t182. , .: TCE
. ,150
NP
$338
*517
. .5410 ,
-S748/
$263
515
$1024
$1 ,435
5 15
AC
POE
PubiamCounty.NY 1987 TCE
67
5823
$494
NA
$1,650
3268
8320
5263
515
5678
5947
Sf0
5865
[ i tAC
POE
tGoodrldti9Q0 -
pl03T1Cpf00T
Cp Ti l03T
i52W - -
S30L -
---$16
. S58s
if 34f
$8
$12.25
AC
POE
Goodridi 1990
ICE
25
CpKGT
CpKGT
CpKGT
CpiKGT
5270
5282
515
5566
11,322
$8
$ 1208
NP-
5428
55.
AC - -P .0U
NP
NP
AC
POE
Goodnd 1992
1 ICE
10
j2 I88
IWP
CpKGT
CpKGT
CpKGT
$292
AC
.POE-
.Oaodrtdt1992 -
ICE
. 15
Q188
r.w
Cpi92T -
COKGT.
- KGT.
$292 ,
win.. U -
51440
U
N
316 5 1498
NP
AC POE
5729
CPKGT .. -ptv .i u
-ri
$1,514 - 51363
M JU
817
AC
POE
Goodrtdi 1982
i: -TCE
52 , 188
W
-CpKGT
CPKOT
-CpI T
$292
$282...-
$15
.1
Aeration
AX
AX
$253 5263
59-97
CPIWT Cp GT CpK T 5292
5 2 .050
TCE_ 50 5.2.1 88 lt W CPKGT CoKGT CPKGT 1286 1263 315
$15
$113
I
.1
3282
NA
5530
57W - , S2UT
$2,817
315
1
5940 $112- Sf58 51.360 5221
1264 5238
515
5459 -
515
- $608
51481
515
$1353
:::
-5008
51481
$15
$1363
l -NA
52.531
$123
$531 52.1 05
3518 5250
49 $289
IWP
NA
5289
576 5206
5179 Sf5
$399
5475
Sf302
$434
TSU $411.
571 15
$350
$19
51,155
5112
5 4685
1 51,959 5112 5311 52,30 1 5388 5264
5589 51,462 $ 15 51336
- . -1- - J212
AX
POU
EPA OIIIti
?*X--- ,POU
, x-EPA:
AX
Central
Ax
Curl .
AX
Central
AX
POE
AX
POE
$238 $15
- . 1
15105: 1505 . ,I aen90Nt515a
5762.
NP - 51,052 $488 5263 515 $766
miP___
$f,402
$ 15
- Sf3 .36
11.438
515
51313
3648
$400. $120
tI
5318
$499
5132
5365
$301
56 98
3231
579
$80-
$466
5 15 -
5264
Pou
$822
RM .h.udSSaL °I Nitrate
I
$350
$40
$60
$616
5163
5
5284
$238 515 5517
$517
5738
$7
5674
1503
51,021
59
19.32
$962
5 3 67
Sf22
56 ST
$1,724
5904
5542
so
---
31574
3826
5495
5411
Lyktis(TPw lpe) 19921 Nitrate 150 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP 3355 34 , $324
Q155-
- 5465- -S
5259
- $122
5 1 5
- $386
5851
$514
58
5777
5408
34 08
5458
5458
$67
175
U24
IT S -
5284
$102
3365
133
5 15
$412
5470
54 70
515 5400 5637 56 5582
$288
597 517
$461
,. S122
1418
133
5 16
5458
$589
$529
5529
NA ..
5410
5108,
:
NA
5164
$49
pe)I998 - l&Me -
I SO
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP -
NP
NP
HP
NP
5653
57
$596
,ipe) 1992 Nitrate
150
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
Sf77
52
5162
1992, ,-.Nitrate--
150
*188
$75
-
5339
-
Q603
$424
5369
5121
315
*505
5928
$10
$848
Nirale
i UranIum
I
$2325
$175
NA
52,553
5415
3327
$123
515
1464
3880
38
3803
- 1
12
I a
74
$15
5413
$521
$476
5476
515
536!
5409
5374
5374
Table 21 - Case Studies
Page 2
-------
Table 2.1: Capital and Operation and Maintenance Cost Data .- Case Studies
Typec Pointof
Unit Appilcatlon
Source
CX POE
r
POE
Ri& 1987
Copper
25
TCC
POE
RL*. .198?
Copper
120
TCC
PILP.. 1 0(
Number of
Househoida
(hh)
Purchase
($lhh)
inatanatlon
Coat ($flih)
Contingency
Coat ($1 )
Total Capital
Coat
(19975 8th)
Amoi tlzed Annual
Capital Costa Maintenance
11997$lhhIyr) Coat (SIhhIyr)
copper
300
TCC TTC
irc
5 1.316
$214
5309
:
TTC -
$989
TTC Sf174
5 191
Annual Annual Total Annual Total Annual Coat per 1,000 Cost per 1000
Sampilng Cost Administrative 0834 Cost Costa Galions Treated Gallons Used
($IhhIyrI Cost ($ihhlyr) (1997$Ihhlyrl (1997$lhI ,Iyr) (1997$IICgal) (1997$IKgal)
5122
515
515
5525
5739
57
516
8
$541
55
5482
ER
r
W
POE
POE
POE
POU
Rl& 1987
EPA Ds!Ibuu(c cap) haS
EPAStudy 1988
Guinerman (US) 1983
Copper
Copper
Copper
Copper
860 .
I
i
1
TCC
51.155
52,167
$260
TTC
$1l2
5212
540
TTC
5190
$476
$45
$1 Q46 .
51.457
- $2 855 .
5472
$170
5237
.; $465
5125
$246
5175
. $111 ,
563
5122
5124
$ 124
$124
515
5 I5
- Sf5
515
5444
$313
5299
-
5614
$550
$784 .
88
56
$5
57
5656
.. $8.25
5503
5698
POU
Gunennan (PL) - 1983
Copper
I
$310
$120
$65,
5678
- 5179
563
$124
515
5264
5264
$389
5355
5355
, 14.05.
5435
POU
EPADaI,EmM, cap) INS Copper
I
5318
519
551
5387
.$4$f.
TAC
5538
5102
5325
.$371- ,$35
TAOMC
TAOMC
TAOMC
TAONC
TAOMC
TAOMC .
$295
535
515
5374
5476
R
POU
EPAStudy 1988 Copper
1-
$288
$97
$77
TAOMC
TAOMC
TAOMC
TAOMC .
TAOMC
TAOMC.
568
$128.
. S15
TAOMC
TAOMC
TAOMC
TAOMC
$429
$542
$122.
i
Central
Bellevue, WI 1989 Raduten
1.282
TAC
TAC
TAC
5118
$75
$193
$2
51 77
$247 .
5415
D Sl6.8l - -f
$2332
POE Radium
1,282
$356
$48
581
588
5182
$270
52
14
S$7 -a
523
es m.oaa.scp p ma Radium
1,282
- 51.107
$27
5170
51512
$246
5208
5454
o.*
*aIa
Central Gibson Canyon, CA. 1992 Bacteria
POE aca.., ma Bacteria
140
140
$11,000
$2.65?
IWP
575
NA
NA
511.789 . .
52,922
., ,S1 385
5476
5455
51.840
TAOMC
52.078
52,554
o*
POE a-ca..impm ,.*ma BacterIa
140
53.529
$75
NA
$3,856
-.5628 -
TAQUC
5831
,ar r S l 3 .89, . 1
5824
54.58
1422
$8.20.
5490
$220 ?.. l
5199
$47
5429
$367
5248
$5
$1,459
5903
$502aia
1462
522
,
58
o,.. -ima.
POE
Epcso . Wl(CImdUV ) 1594 Bacteria
425
52,910
IWP
NA
53,910
5474
POE EPAOIotm.taveep)1 B ctei1a
1
$609
.5112
$108 ...
$829 .
.5135
5225
$15.
;;;;;;
POU EPAOsIaSiu(vm cap) ieee Bacteria
Central Elkhwt 1987 TCE
Central ...v. sa* ca i ma Arsenic
POU ua- cor ,Ne Arae.*
1
5684
519
5106
$809
5213
5195
539
$15
? $5 , .
$422
PTA
21,667
$115
IWP
NA
$145
$17
TAG
SllO
5110
TAOMC
TAOMC
TAGMC
- SO .
5199
. -.. 589
581
1
TAC
TAC
TAG
TAC -
TAG
TAC
TAG
TAG
$536
RO
P.O
TAG
TAG
TAG
TAG
TAC
TAG
$241
78
5290
536
NA .
$415
5217
RO
POU s.avma.ma oeai -ieea Arsenic
POU u-a- maa-c ArsenIc
78
$290
$36
NA
5415
TAC
TAC
TAG
RO
TB
TAG
TAG
TAC
TAG
TAG
TAG
TAG
TAG
$ 19 1
571
51.74
RO
POU
Arsenic
78
TAG
TAG
TAC
TAG
TAC
TAC
TAC
TAC
TAC
5217
.
581
,4
5198
5
POU
ra- Arsenic
78
TAG
TAC
TAG
TAG -
, TAG
TAG
TAG
TAG
TAC
$19 )
$73;
$1.80
POU
San Ygidro, NM 1986 Araenic
I
$665
IWP
NA
5849
$224
5220
5220
- TAOMC
Mlnbnal
532
532
TAOMC
Minimal
515
- 515
TAOMC
Mitlital
515
5266
5490
1
5447
$3.44
52728
: , . 51569
i τ
RO
POU
Fda- M E Araen
4
$292
$19
NA
$419
5111
5266
$376
559
5450
527
Central
Ensngton,iL(est) 1985 AraamclFk nde 47
52,553
114.263
51,065
5860
TAC
IWP
-
NA
$3,326
5391
φ
Centrai(Ctn )
eew e ots Na Ars.nlclFIaeflde 5?
V IP
NA
514.624
51.718
Minimal
$1,718
$18
φ
POU KmeIPcad.Si941.V&. legs AraenlclFbaoilda 1
519
NA
51,085
5286
$400
8M G
5425
5711
RO
POU Emington, II. 1985 A,aaitlclFIaodds 47
U lA(RO) 1987 ArsersclNitrate 25
$68
NA
5749
$197
5287
531
515
5333
$530
5649
$1,815
5649
$4.84
TAC
TAC
51,461
5238
$232
$121
515
5426
5470
-,
54
.
5582
τ
POE
RiA(RO) 1987 ArianIcINItyate 120 -
TAG
TAG
TAG
$1 ,131,.
-. $184j.
- $189
$130
515
RIA(RO) 1987 Arsenic/Nitrate 300
TAC
TAC
TAG
51.496
5249
$252
-
5120
515
5450
$373
5495
$3
. $531
5
POE
R1A(RO) 1987 Arsenic/Nitrate 860
TAG
TAG
TAG
$1,333 -
5217:
5224
5120
5 15
$415
1441
5495
φ
POE
EPAOEISSI.jma cup) baa Arsenic/Nitrate
53,520
5112
5545
$4,177
$680
5657
5122
$15
5793
73
$471
POE
POE
EPA Study. 1988 Arsenic/Nitrate
$6,838
, $364
.5 1840 I
. Sf 1,040
- .51.79?
. 5591
$122
515
$72)
513
-
5 13 45
i 5
POU
Gumerman(US) 1983 Arsenic/Nitrate I
$370
$50
-
$65
5664
5175
$148
-
$124
.
$15
5378
a
5553
$23 :
5505
4 i t 1 $2305
$505
POU
Etbeet (var cap) 1985 AraenulNitrate I T
.5892
519
5137 .
5 l 435
$379
$221
$33
515
5269
5647
5591
POU
EPA Database (vu, cap) 1559 Arsenic/Nitrate 1
5454
$19
571
5545
$144
5152
533
515
5199
5343
$313
$313
n
POU
EPA Study 1988 ArsenIc/Nitrate 1
5833
$121
5191
51,145
$302
- $196
$33
515
$248
5548
5800
5
POE
R,au,hi..diSa ,dliimid iY lees Nitrate 1
59,491
$300
NA
$9,881
51,608
5643
5123
515
5781
$2,389
522
.
52182
φ
POU R},saesatsil,use, )rt lees Nitrate - 1
5892
$110
- NA
51,035
5273
5152
$34
515
5201
$474
$433.
. $433
Table 2 1 . Case Studies
Page 3
-------
Table 2.1: Capital and Operation and Maintenance Cost Data Case Studies
Ranlamemorit PenIs
ppl
WV C_.a
Cost
Esoected Ut.
Painter at people per hausehob
Waist consumed per pence per day (pdlper)
Total water use per pemon pet day (gpdlper)
Waler consumed per hatisahale per pear (gpylhh)
Total waler use pet lieueehele pet pest (gpylhh)
l4esas pet workday
Eqteots elfeotiw We of POU (ye a ts)
Espeded elfediw Ut. of POE (yeats)
Deded elfedlie 9t of Central Plant (yeas)
Mh*naly flied wage rate (Me)
Shied wage rate (Mo)
ledesatlee bevel and preperellon trw (Penalty)
POU hulelallee (lesion . )
POE hiatalairn mraAss . )
Maheenance beset and preparatIon trw Q lmlday)
PCI) warlenanco (leant.)
POE maerteeance ( beAm . )
Sandng freqeeecy (aemplaolhhtyl)
Sensfhig bawl end prapaisllen trw (besaley)
PCI) eanrplhig lane (ltrsieenpa)
POE eenrpltg toe Oowsen*e)
AACertrdge
Assent
$5000
35
SAC Cel1lld e
Aledibot
$4000
35
AX Ca.lrlege
AreenlciNkrele
$8000
35
CXCertrMge
Copper
$7000
35
RQMertene
Assert
$13500
150
ROMerr trene
Nirale
$13500
300
ParticidalaPter
Any
$1500
75
OACpeeet4tr
Any
$2000
75
POE Cewpenel
Cenlaninant
Coal
Year
30
10
1000
1 .0950
iojsooo
500
SO
100
200
$1450
52$ 00
200
100
300
200
0 75
200
100
100
025
000
100
100%
150%
Level
1507 1955
GAO
CAC
GAO
AX
AX
CX
W Ort - .
Alselt
Radon O
Radon (1.500)
A s sen t
m m
Copper
MSohleloglcaN
50500
90000
50050
$0000
$12000
$12000
510000
$15000
093
003
1002
1035
1002
1125
1154
1171
1150
120 I
1224
1250
1255
NA
teas
1008
1587
15 50
1955
1590
1901
1952
1993
1994
1995
1990
1997
pre .1955
PPI Waler
V VU
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
1000
Ainorllsatlen rate
Centhigency fee
AS Cat ted entrIes hicoeporabe assun dbss to pernal cemparfeon ash Ca&nrsa coat mews
Al oanrplkrg trIps lake pIece 51 eame lhne Os walntenanen
Eledrlcal costa era Ignored hr ete cakrdatlen of total ennual costs
Acronym Mean lne Aeroosm sliw
Year
Level
PCI)
10 150%
50 225%
100 . 300%
poefrareowler)
10 150%
50 225%
100 ° 300%
P00W
t O 100%
50 125%
100 150%
POEferRn
10 100%
50. 200%
e o lvio l
52.500
clv,0b
cIvlol
109 .500
54.750
109.500
109500
Lab Dmwa-it Rates
I of Sano ea I macour
isai isxx
1980
1987
1905
1589
1590
1551
1992
1993
1994
1955
9 *
1597
pre-1990
N5 5
IO u
1057
1102
1154
1055
u sa
1150
1220
1255
1300
1320
NA
sue
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
100
A c
AX
0 0 (01
C X
GSA
CSCP
COP
005
SAC
haP
NA
Lab Fees
Adloaled Ahjmhra
t e raeeya
CatIon Endrange
C oS i ne Britele Aerate
peon
0lh iWtroerade
Adloated Cotton
Inflaled edh Pradteae
Nd Appecsble
NP
POE
PCI)
P m
Rn
RO
TAO
TACI IIC
TOE
(N
rIot PresIded
Pohrt-of .Erty
Un
t Pto hales
lewme Garnet
nflaled hi Total Annual Coal
nflnled Or Total Arailal 0031 Coat
mnttmse
Ll9tantolet Olshrfedlon
Contwrdnmd
Pee
Assent
5050
Copper
$1200
NSrele
$1100
Radon
94050
Aladdet
59500
DBCPI009
$5790
TCEIDCP
$17300
Tcealocetarrn
$1000
20Io49 I 10%
80.1 20%
Caivaraior Fadore
CoSta (Ocr 3755
Grahi Miigrern 54750
5sf UnIte Olacount
10 33%
Table 2 1 - Case Studies
Page 4
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Figure 2.1 details the way in which the case study data were included in this cost analysis.
Detailed infonnation on real world implementation of POE and POU devices was gleaned
from documented case studies. However, while these case studies were useful, they were
generally too dated or too parochial for use in developing broadly applicable costs. The POE and
POU industry has become much more competitive than it was in the early 1980s as more vendors
have entered the market. Prices for household water treatment equipment have stabilized and, in
some areas, have decreased. Water treatment technology has improved, permitting the
fabrication of more durable and more efficient treatment units. Therefore, simply escalating the
costs presented in the case studies to 1997 dollars to account for inflation would not provide an
accurate picture of the costs small communities would likely incur to purchase, install, and
maintain POE and POU devices today.
Nonetheless, the, Producer Price Index (PPI) for final demand less energy was used to
permit comparison between the capital and O&M costs presented in Table 2.1. The case studies
were used to verify and support the costs developed in this analysis for the implementation of
POE and POU treatment strategies, rather than as the basis for the cost curves presented in
section 4. In the event of substantial disagreement between the case study costs and the Cadmus
costs, the Cadmus costs and the associated assumptions were revisited to ensure accuracy. In all
cases of substantial disagreement a logical explanation for the deviation was found.
The case studies that follow are organized by the contaminant of concern. This
organization permits the reader to compare the costs of different POE, POU, and central
treatment technologies that may be used to treat a particular contaminant. Note that section 2.11
details the use of POE and POU technology for the treatment of microbiological contaminants.
As mentioned in sections 1.1 and 1.4, the SDWA specifically forbids the use of POU devices for
the achievement of an MCL for any microbiological contaminant. Great care must also be taken
when instituting a POE treatment strategy for microbials. Therefore, these sections should not be
read as a recommendation for the implementation of a POU or POE treatment strategy for
microbials, but instead as an example of management and sampling strategies that may be used
to implement a POU and POE treatment strategy. A conununity should not select one of the
devices described in the case studies simply because the device was used successfully and
economically treat the contaminant polluting the communitys water. As noted in section 1.5.3,
before widespread installation, a treatment device should undergo pilot testing to determine its
capacity to treat the contaminant of concern given the nature of the local source water.
2.1 Arsenic Treatment
Arsenic as a free element (As°) is rarely encountered in natural waters. Soluble inorganic
arsenate (As [ V]) predominates under normal conditions since it is thermodynamically more
stable in water than arsenite (As [ I1I]). Arsenate and arsenite are commonly found in both ground
27
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
and surface water supplies. Arsenic is frequently used in agricultural chemicals (e.g., herbicides
and desiccants) and is often incorporated in semiconductor devices.
Several treatment techniques have proven effective in removing arsenic from water.
These include lime softening, electrodialysis, distillation, AA, AX, and RO. However, it is
currently only practical to employ the latter four technologies in POU devices (see section 1.3).
AA has proven effective for arsenic removal in several studies (Bellack 1971, Gupta
1978, Clifford 1982, EPA unpublished). The ability of AA to adsorb arsenic is directly
dependent on pH. The maximum capacity of AA for arsenic adsorption occurs between pH 5.5
and pH 6.0.
1973 laboratory studies by Shen and Calmon demonstrated that arsenic can be removed
by AX resins. As mentioned above, arsenic occurs naturally in ground and surface waters in two
valence states, arsenate and arsenite. Arsenate is predominantly encountered as a negatively
charged ion. Therefore it is efficiently removed by AX technology. Arsenite occurs
predominantly as an uncharged ion (H 3 AsO 3 ) in waters with a pH of less than 9.0 and is not
removed as effectively as arsenate by AX (see section 1.3.3). If arsenite is present in source
water, oxidation to arsenate is necessary for effective removal by AX.
An unpublished EPA report shows that RO systems can remove more than 90 percent of
arsenate and 60 to 70 percent of arsenite. A 1981 study by Huxstep corroborates these results.
2. 1.1 Fairbanks, Alaska and Eugene, Oregon
This study investigated the efficacy of AA, AX, and RO devices. Two homes in Eugene,
Oregon and two homes in Fairbanks, Alaska were equipped with POU systems designed to treat
household thinking water. Each of systems was composed of an AA tank, an AX tank, and an
RO system. A water meter was used to measure the true throughput of each unit. The
households chosen for study were selected with the cooperation of State organizations and
individual homeowners. All relied on private well water that frequently exceeded the MCL for
arsenic (0.05 mgIL). This case study was summarized by Fox (1989)
Arsenic concentrations in the source water for the study households ranged from less than
0.005 mgfL to more than 1.1 mgfL during this study. Arsenate was believed to predominate at all
four test locations. It is important to note that iron and sulfite concentrations were low in the
source water (see Table 2.1.1.1) because these contaminants may interfere with the removal of
arsenic. Iron compounds will clog and foul AX resins and the AA media (see sections 1.3.1 and
1.3.3), thereby reducing the removal capabilities of each unit or reducing water throughput.
Sulfate is preferentially selected over arsenic by AX resins and also interferes with arsenic
removal by AA (see sections 1.3.1 and 1.3.3). In a 1982 study, Clifford and Rosenblum showed
that arsenic adsorption was reduced by 50 percent in the presence of 15 milliequivalents (meq) of
28
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFI Do Not Cite or Quote
sulfate per liter in deionized water. The equivalent weight of a substance is its atomic or
molecular weight divided by its ionic charge or the number of hydrogen atoms that would be
required to replace the cation. During this study, treated water was not consumed by
homeowners.
Table 2.1.1.1. Source Water Quality of Surveyed Households in Fairbanks, AK and Eugene, OR
Contaminant
Jiifluent Concentration for
Households in Fairbanks
Influent Concentration for
Households in Eugene
Household One
(mgfL)
Household Two
(mg L)
Household One
(mgIL)
Household Two
(mg/L)
Arsenic (range)
0.25-1.08
0.22-1.16
<0.005-0.28
0.005-0.32
Calcium
22
8.9
18
19
Magnesium
10.6
9.3
5.3
5.5
Sodium
6.0
4.4
40
62
Chloride
<10
<10
<10
<10
Iron
<0.1
0.20
0.24
0.18
Sulfate
<15
<15
<15
<15
Turbidity (NTU)
0.48
0.32
0.43
0.24
Alkalinity
108
56
151
206
pH
8.0
7.4
8.3
8.3
The POU units were operated automatically by a system of solenoid valves and timers.
The timers were initially set to open the valves daily at the times when an average family might
use water. The system was designed so that each treatment unit would operate separately and no
two effluent valves would be open at the same time. The timers actuated the effluent valves nine
times a day, permitting the treatment of 1 gallon of water by both the AX and the AA tank, and
0.5 gallons of water by the RO unit each time the valves were opened. After 6 months, the
valves were opened 18 times a day to increase flow through the units to speed up arsenic
breakthrough. 2
A meq of sulfate (SO 4 2 ) would equal: (32 + 16*4) / 2 =48 mg/meq
2 Breakthrough occurs when the concentration of the contaminant of concern exceeds a specified
level (generally the local, state, or federal MCL for the contaminant).
29
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Local and State employees performed all sampling of the units. Samples were collected
biweekly from the influent and effluent lines of each of the three treatment elements and were
sent to EPA in Cincinnati, Ohio for analysis.
2.1.1.1 Activated Alumina
The AA tanks used in this study were 46 inches tall and 9 inches in diameter. Each AA
tank was filled with 1 cubic foot of granular activated alumina. The AA medium was designed
to be pit-treated in the tank. The pre-treatment process consisted of passing a sodium hydroxide
solution through the tank, rinsing the medium with clean water, and then treating the medium
with dilute sulfuric acid to lower its pH. At a flow rate of I gpm, the surface loading rate of the
tank was 2.7 gpm per square foot, and the minimum empty bed contact time (EBCT) was 7.5
minutes. The actual contact time was probably greater because the effluent valves were opened
for only 1 minute by the timers, and the water sat undisturbed in the tank (in contact with the
AA) until the next valve-opening period.
The three AS units that failed to work as well as expected suffered from inadequate
pretreatment. None of the units that failed had been treated with dilute sulfuric acid. Therefore,
the pH of the water in the AA units was well above the ideal level for arsenic adsorption (pH 6).
Thus, the tanks capacity to adsorb arsenic was much lower than anticipated. However, the six
properly prepared AA units performed extremely well, consistently maintaining arsenic levels
well below the MCL until they were taken off line. Three units successfully treated more than
10,000 gallons of water (10,784, 15,427, and 18,557 gallons) while the remaining three AS units
each successfully treated more than 6,000 gallons. Based on the results of this study, a capacity
of about 1.0 mg of arsenic per gram of AA could probably be expected in future applications of
AS if source water concentrations of iron and sulfate are limited and the AS undergoes all
appropriate pretreatment.
2.1.1.2 Anion Exchange
The AX tanks used in this study were the same size as the AA tanks. Each AX tank was
filled with 1 cubic foot of a strong base AX resin. The resin was chemically treated in the tank
into the chlorine form. At a flow of 1 gpm, the surface loading rate of the tank was 2.7 gpm per
square foot, providing a minimum EBCT of 7.5 minutes. The actual contact time was probably
greater because the effluent valves were only opened for 1 minute by the timers, and the water sat
undisturbed in the tank (in contact with the resin) until the next valve-opening period.
Two AX units exhibited erratic removal of arsenic. A third unit performed poorly due to
inadequate regeneration practices at the start of the project. However, the remaining four AX
units worked extremely well, successfully treating water containing as much as 1.16 mgfL of
arsenic to concentrations of less than 0.05 mglL. Three of the units treated more than 10,000
30
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
gallons successfully (11,858, 16,254, and 20,935 gallons) and were disconnected at the end of the
project even though the capability of the resin to adsorb arsenic had not been exhausted.
Depositions of up to 0.86 mg of arsenic per gram of resin were found in the AX tanks when they
were opened at the end of the study.
2.1.1.3 Reverse Osmosis
The RO units studied for this project were designed to produce between 3 and 5 gallons
of drinking water per day and to operate with source water pressures ranging from 20 to 100 psi
with a reject-to-product water ratio of about 10:1. Each RO unit was equipped with a 5-/2m
cartridge pre-filter, a carbon post-filter, a cellulose-acetate RO membrane, and a small storage
tank. Two years into the study, a second type of RO system was installed at one location. This
unit was identical to the old unit, except that a booster pump was added to increase operating
pressure to 195 psi. The use of the high-pressure RO system improved the reject-to-product
water ratio to 3:1 but also increased electrical costs.
The low-pressure RO systems initially removed 60 to 80 percent of influent arsenic.
However, due to the high arsenic concentrations of the source water at the study sites, the RO
units rapidly deteriorated and were not always successful in lowering the arsenic concentration
below the MCL. On average, the low-pressure RO units provided only a 50 percent removal rate
for arsenic over the life of their membranes. For the low-pressure RO system to serve as an
effective treatment option given the raw water characteristics observed during this study, the
membranes would need to be replaced at least twice a year. The high-pressure RO unit
successfully reduced arsenic levels below the MCL for 330 days before it was taken off line at
the conclusion of the study. All of the RO systems significantly lowered the level of TDS in the
source water.
One potential cause of concern for system administrators who select this treatment
technology is the limited production capability of some RO units (less than 3 gallons of treated
water each day). The large amount of water wasted by low-pressure RO units may be a source of
concern in water-scarce regions. However, since arsenic is not accumulated on the RO
membrane, disposal is not a concern as it may be with POU AX and POU AA systems. In areas
of high arsenic concentrations in source water, AA units, AX units, or high-pressure RO units
may be necessary to ensure adequate protection of public health.
2.1.1.4 Cost Data and Study Conclusions
Costs for the various elements of the pilot systems installed in Alaska and Oregon were
provided by Fox (1987). The capital costs reported in the case study were $350, $250, and $292
for the AX element, AA element, and RO element, respectively (1983 dollars).
31
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
The author of the study drew several conclusions about the ability of POE and POU
devices to treat contaminated water adequately.
1. Any medium used in a POE or POU device must undergo adequate pre-treatment
to permit efficient and effective contaminant removal.
2. Sampling should be done immediately after installation and periodically thereafter
to confirm adequate contaminant removal.
3. A complete source water analysis is necessaiy to determine the proper type of
POU or POE devices to be used.
4. POE devices should be used when skin adsorption or inhalation of a specific
contaminant is of concern.
This study suggests that in areas where centralized treatment is not feasible (e.g., when
the cost of a central treatment plant would be prohibitive) the use of POE or POU treatment
devices may be acceptable. POE and POU treatment units are easy to install and are relatively
inexpensive. POU units provide the added efficiency of treating only water that is actually
consumed. However, the use of POE and POU treatment devices requires an extensive
monitoring program and substantial educational outreach to the community to ensure the
continuous protection of public health. Further, as stated in section 1.5, the installation of POE
or POU devices does not eliminate the liability of the local water system. The system is still
responsible for the reliable and consistent provision of safe drinking water to all of its customers.
2.1.2 San Ysidro, New Mexico
Rogers (1988) authored the original report detailing the San Ysidro experience from
which much of this summary was drawn. Details regarding this case study were also reported by
Lykins (1992). The Village of San Ysidro is a rural community of about 200 people located
approximately 45 miles north of Albuquerque, New Mexico. Village water is disinfected by a
hypochiorination system at the source, a nearby infiltration gallery. The infiltration gallery
produces an average of 27,000 gallons per day (gpd) in winter and 36,000 gpd in summer.
However, the village uses an average of 30,000 gpd (about 150 gpd per person). To provide the
additional capacity the village needs, a 20,000-gallon elevated storage tank was connected to the
distribution system. Unfortunately, mechanical and electrical problems have led to difficulty in
keeping the tank operational.
The village has a long history of water supply problems, including low water pressure,
unpleasant aesthetics (poor taste, color, clarity, and odor), sporadic coliform violations, and
arsenic and fluoride contamination. The local ground water has a high mineral content because
geothermal activity causes leaching from the areas abundant mineral deposits. At the beginning
32
-------
Cost Evaluation oJPOU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
of the study, the ground water exceeded the primary MCL for arsenic and the recommended
standards (secondary MCLs) for fluoride, iron, manganese, chloride, and TDS (0.05 mgIL, 2.0
mg/L, 0.3 mgIL, 0.05 mgIL, 250 mgIL, and 500 mgIL, respectively). The contaminants of
primary concern to the village were arsenic and fluoride, each of which exceeded the MCL by
three to four times. Arsenic and fluoride concentrations averaged 0.059 mgfL and 2.7 mgIL,
respectively, over the course of the study. Of the arsenic found in village water, 35 percent was
found to be arsenite.
Four deep test wells were drilled by a local engineering firm to determine if a better water
source was available. However, the best of these wells had water merely equal in quality to that
of the infiltration gallery. A University of Houston study determined that central treatment of the
entire water supply was not feasible for several reasons. First, the village would face an
expensive waste disposal problem with either arsenic-contaminated sludge from AA column
regeneration or the concentrated reject brine produced by a central RO system. Second, building
a central treatment plant would be prohibitively expensive. Third, a central treatment facility was
deemed too complicated to be operated efficiently by a community the size of San Ysidro.
Since arsenic and fluoride are harmful only if ingested in excessive quantities for an
extended period of time, only water destined for human consumption (i.e., water used for
drinking and cooking) needed to be treated in San Ysidro. An analysis of unit removal
efficiency, cost, and management requirements led to the identification of POU RO treatment as
the best solution to the villages water supply problems. Therefore, EPA, in conjunction with the
village, began a study designed to determine whether POU RO units could function satisfactorily
in lieu of central treatment to remove arsenic and fluoride from the communitys drinking water
supply.
The number of units used by the community of San Ysidro ranged from 67 units at the
beginning of the study to 78 units at the end. On average, 74 RO units were available for
maintenance and testing during the study. The units were each equipped with a particulate pre-
filter, a GAC pro-filter, a GAC post-filter, a spiral-wound polyamide RO membrane, a 3-gallon
storage tank, and an in-line TDS monitor. Each unit was designed to produce between 5 and 8
gallons of product water per day. The ratio of reject-to-product water for these units ranged from
2:1 to 4:1. Three units were equipped with totalizing (water) meters to measure household water
use. Over the course of the study, the units equipped with the meters treated 8.5 to 17 gallons of
raw water per day.
Data were collected during the San Ysidro study to evaluate the effectiveness of POU RO
units in removing arsenic, fluoride, TDS, and bacteria from the water. Samples were collected
from each unit on a bimonthly basis and were analyzed for arsenic and fluoride. Every 4 to 6
months samples were also analyzed for chloride, iron, and manganese. Samples were also
collected periodically from a smaller group of 40 units and were analyzed for total coliform
33
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
organisms. Sample collection usually took 20 hours per month (about 15 minutes per
household). A schedule for sample collection was typically placed in a customers water bill.
Each RO unit was numbered for identification purposes. Sampling costs over the course of the
study averaged $25 per unit per month. However, post-study testing expenses were virtually
eliminated because conductance (determined with the in-line TDS meter) was used as a surrogate
test to warn of arsenic and fluoride breakthrough.
The RO units were very effective in removing arsenic and fluoride from the communitys
water, reducing average influent concentrations of 0.22 mg As/L and 5.2 mg F/L to less than 0.05
mg As/L and 2.0 mg F/L, respectively. The units also reduced chloride, iron, manganese, and
TDS to desired levels despite low system pressure (sometimes less than 20 psi). However, as
may be seen in Table 2.1.2.1, the removal percentages were approximately 10 percent below
those stated in the manufacturers literature. This was most likely due to the quantity and
combination of contaminants in San Ysidros water. The reduction of TDS resulted in consumer
comment on the improved taste of water and the increased clarity of ice cubes. The improved
water quality led customers to use treated water for cooking and drinking on a consistent basis.
The study did not generate conclusive findings on the effectiveness of the RO units in
removing bacteria from drinking water. In fact, 15 of 131 samples tested positive for bacteria
during routine sampling. After the carbon pre-fliters were replaced and the system was flushed
with chlorine, however, follow-up coliform analyses were negative. No evidence was found that
suggested bacterial colonization on the RO membranes.
Table 2.1.2.1: Performance Data for POU RO Devices in San Ysidro, NM
Contaminant
Maximum
Influent
Concentration
(mιIL)
Average
Influent
Concentration
(mg(L)
Observed
Removal
Rate
Manufacturers
Estimated Removal Rate
Arsenic (total)
0.22
0.059
86%
68% As (III); 96% As (V)
Fluoride
5.2
2.7
87%
82%
Chloride
325.0
91
84%
94%
Iron
2.0
0.58
97%
Not Reported
Manganese
0.2
0.09
87%
97%
Total Dissolved Solids
1,000
780
88%
94%
A competitive bidding process was used to select a POU RO unit for the village. The
winning vendor provided the village with a volume discount of 56.5 percent for the purchase of
80 units. Each unit cost the village $325 ($289.50 plus $35.50 for installation) instead of the
34
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
vendors standard retail price of $665.00 in 1986 dollars. The vendor maintained all of the
treatment units in the community for a monthly service fee of $8.60 per unit. Over the course of
the service contract, the village maintenance specialist received field training from the service
contractor. The maintenance contract between the village and the vendor remained in effect for
20 months (approximately the duration of the study), after which the village maintenance
specialist took over all maintenance and monitoring duties.
The author of the study calculated the anticipated future O&M costs for the residents of
San Ysidro based on the villages experience during the study. The following assumptions were
used to estimate these future costs:
I. The village would retain ownership of all RO units installed during the course of
the study.
2. New units would be purchased by the water customer, but ownership of all RO
units would remain with the village. New units were priced at $350 per unit.
3. The village would maintain a small supply of spare parts for routine filter
replacement and leak repairs.
4. The frequency of filter and membrane replacement was based on performance
during the project period. Replacement costs were $10.60 per particulate filter,
$20.10 per carbon pre-filter, $15.60 per carbon post-filter, and $126 per
membrane.
5. Damage resulting from customer negligence or misuse would be charged to the
customer.
6. Leak repairs and other special service calls would require 8 hours per month.
7. Conductance checks would be performed on 20 units per month to ensure that
each unit was checked at least once every 6 months. Checks would require 12
hours per month.
8. A sample from each POU unit would be tested once every 3 years for arsenic.
Tests would be staggered over that period and would cost the village $8.50 each.
9. A village maintenance person would perform installation, routine maintenance,
and sampling of the units (at $6.00 per hour).
35
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
10. Record keeping for all of the units in the community would require 8 hours of the
Village Clerks time each month (at $8.00 per hour).
11. The total estimated monthly charge per customer was based on the universe of 78
PO!J units installed by the end of the project period. Thus, the estimate was
subject to change as the number of installed units increased.
Within the first 6 months, 6 units that were not working properly were replaced. Another
35 units required service due to leaks, TDS monitor malfunction, or water flow problems. Over
the 20-month period of the maintenance contract, a total of $3,370 worth of replacement parts
were required to repair the RO units. To estimate future repair costs, the village adjusted the
figure in several ways. First, since the units had a pro-rated warranty of 24 months, a partial
refund could be obtained if a unit was found to be defective. Over the 20-month period, $656
was refunded to San Ysidro by the vendor for premature breakage. Second, because customers
were expected to pay for any damage to their RO units that resulted from their own negligence,
the village could expect to avoid paying the repwr costs associated with freeze damage ($136).
Third, since it was determined that all future POU units would be disinfected prior to installation
and installed with an air gap to prevent cross contamination with the household septic systems,
the $1,034 worth of parts that needed to be replaced due to bacterial contamination could be
ignored in the calculation of future costs. Thus, the future cost for replacement parts was
estimated at $77.21 per month for the entire town. Since an average of 74 households were
equipped with POU PD units while the maintenance contract was in effect, the estimated cost for
replacement parts was determined to be $1.04 per household per month.
Incorporating the assigned and assumed costs for parts, labor, lab work, and insurance,
the total cost per month per customer was estimated to be $7.04. This compares fuvorably to the
monthly household charge ($30 to $40) estimated by the University of Houston for the
installation of central treatment in San Ysidro. Further, the $30 to $40 monthly charge does not
include the potential costs associated with disposal of the brine produced by the RO process. It is
important to note that the estimate for central treatment included costs for capital expenditures,
whereas the estimate for RO treatment did not include the initial purchase price of the unit.
According to the report, if the cost of the units were included in the monthly charge, the monthly
total cost for POU treatment would rise to $12.45.
Although the monthly cost for POU treatment was less than half that estimated for central
treatment, the cost of each gallon treated by POU devices was approximately six times greater.
Central treatment was estimated to cost approximately $0.01 per gallon treated (including capital
costs). The POU treatment option cost approximately $0.06 per gallon treated (including the cost
of the unit), based on a production level of seven gallons of treated water per day. Excluding unit
capital costs for the POU treatment strategy would result in a cost of $0.03 per gallon treated.
However, the cost per gallon used in households equipped with POU devices remains much
36
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
lower than that of central treatment because POU units treat only a small portion of the water
used by the household and do not require large fixed costs.
The costs of two alternative POU maintenance regimes were estimated by Rogers in the
EPA report describing the San Ysidro study. The cost estimates for both alternatives were based
on 78 units. Alternative One assumed that all carbon pre-filters would be changed annually. The
purchase and installation of 78 carbon pre-filters would be required for this scenario (75 more
than the base scenario each year). A quarter-hour of extra time was allotted for the village
maintenance person to install the extra filter on each unit. This resulted in an additional charge
of $1,620 per year, which translated into an additional cost of $1.73 per unit per month.
Alternative Two assumed a higher cost for replacement polyamide membranes ($170 instead of
$126 per membrane). Since the study assumed that 10 percent of membranes would need to be
replaced each year (an implicit 10-year lifetime), Alternative Two would result in an additional
charge of $352 per year. This translated into an additional monthly cost to customers of $0.38
per unit. Note that a much shorter 1- or 2-year lifetime was assumed for RO membranes for the
purposes of the POU cost analysis (see section 4.3.1). Table 2.1.2.2 presents the costs of various
treatment options examined for San Ysidro.
Table 2.1.2.2: Cost of POU and Central Treatment Options for San Ysidro, NM(1 986$)
Treatment
Cost per
Household per
Month (S/month)
Gallons
Treated
(gal)
Cost per Thousand
Gallons Treated
(SIKgal)
POIJ treatment (excluding cost of unit)
$7.04
225
$31.29
POU treatment (including cost of unit)
$12.45
225
$55.33
POU treatment Alternative I (including cost of unit)
$14.18
225
$63.02
POU treatment Alternative 2 (including cost of unit)
$12.83
225
$57.02
Central treatment (University of Houston estimate)
530- 540
3,000
510-513
To meet its responsibilities under section 1412(b)(4)(E)(ii) of the SDWA, San Ysidro
passed an ordinance making the use of village water contingent upon the installation of a POU
device in the home. The ordinance was deemed necessary because POU treatment cannot be
considered a viable alternative to central treatment if the water system does not supply safe (i.e.,
treated) drinking water to all of its customers.
The successful operation of a community-wide POU treatment strategy requires that the
responsibilities of water users and the water utility be clearly identified. The village council of
37
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment! Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
San Ysidro outlined six responsibilities for water users and three for the water utility (the
village). Each water user was required to:
I. Allow access to their unit.
2. Protect their unit from damage.
3. Assume liability for damage to their unit.
4. Refrain from tampering with or disconnecting their unit.
5. Allow periodic inspection of their unit.
6. Report any problems with their unit to the water utility in a timely fashion.
The village was required to provide:
I. Unit maintenance.
2. Periodic monitoring.
3. Liability insurance to cover any damage caused to a residents home by a
treatment device.
To fulfill the consumer requirements, each water customer was required to sign a
permission form allowing a village designee to enter his or her home for installation and for
periodic testing and maintenance. Customers were also required to accept liability for their
treatment device in the event of negligence or tampering.
The village clerk played a vital role in managing the installation, maintenance, and
monitoring of the units (fulfilling the villages first two requirements). As the contact person for
water customers, the clerk made arrangements with customers for unit installation and all
necessary maintenance work. The clerk coordinated this effort with the contractors service
manager during the 20-month service contract and with the village maintenance specialist after
the contract expired.
To fulfill its third requirement, the village of San Ysidro secured a liability policy
designed to cover water damage resulting from improper installation or device malfunction. The
policy cost the community $400 per year.
38
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
The village made special provisions for commercial establishments. Although the
primary responsibility for providing safe drinking water lies with the water utility operator, the
village decided to transfer this responsibility to the commercial water user through a new
ordinance. This served two purposes. First, the village was relieved of the burden of trying to
coordinate the leasing, purchasing, and maintenance of RO units of various sizes. Second, the
ordinance allowed commercial water users some flexibility in selecting the most economical way
to provide safe drinking water to their customers. Note that this transfer of responsibility and
liability may not be legal in all localities.
Several conclusions were drawn as a result of the San Ysidro study:
POt) treatment served as an effective and economically ound alternative to
central treatment in San Ysidro for the removal of arsenic, fluoride, and other
contaminants.
P0 1) treatment of drinking water can be a reliable and effective means of
contaminant removal in a small community, as long as public acceptance and
cooperation are achieved.
Because of the increased record keeping required to monitor individual devices,
adopting a POt) treatment strategy in a small community requires more oversight
and administrative labor than the implementation of central treatment.
POU strategies require special regulations specifying customer responsibilities,
water utility responsibilities, and the requirement of device installation in each
home obtaining water from the utility.
POU strategies require special consideration from regulatory agencies to
determine appropriate methods for record keeping, monitoring, and testing
frequencies, which may be contrary to existing regulations.
The following recommenoauons were drawn from the San Ysidro experience:
Since combinations of contaminants may alter the removal efficiencies of POU
devices, a pilot test of potential treatment devices should be undertaken using the
communitys source water before approval of the device for community-wide use.
Public acceptance is more vital to the success of a POU treatment strategy than for
a central treatment strategy. For example, new water customers must be educated
in the procedures and requirements of the POt) system. Existing customers
should also be periodically reminded of these responsibilities.
39
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Routine maintenance and sampling operations are best carried out by local water
utility employees or members of the immediate community once they have
received sufficient training. In this way, travel expenses will be minimized,
coordination with customers will be streamlined, and better quality control
procedures may be implemented.
Monitoring costs may be minimized by using conductance as a means to test for
breakthrough of inorganic contaminants such as fluoride or arsenic.
Pre-assembly of POU units may drastically reduce on-site installation time and
associated labor costs.
2.2 Fluoride Treatment
Fluorine is th e most electronegative element and the most reactive non-metal. Due to its
high reactivity, fluorine is rarely, if ever, encountered in the elementary state. Instead it is
encountered in the ionic form or as a variety of inorganic and organic fluorides. Like arsenic,
inorganic fluoride is commonly found in both ground and surface water supplies. While low
concentrations of fluoride in drinking water may prevent dental cavities, concentrations
exceeding 2.0 gIL may result in mottled enamel. Both RO and AA may be used to treat water
contaminated with fluoride.
2.2.1 Suffolk, Virginia
The Kings Point subdivision in Suffolk, Virginia was chosen by EPA and the State of
Virginia as a demonstration site to evaluate the feasibility of POU RO treatment for fluoride.
Lykins, Jr., et a!. (1995) provided a summary for this case.
The water available to Kings Point contained fluoride in the range of 5.0 to 6.1 mg/L,
which exceeds both the federal secondary MCL of 2.0 mg/L and the primary MCL of 4.0 mgIL.
When the site was chosen for study, the Kings Point water system served 39 connections; by the
end of the project period it served 57 connections.
Due to the high concentration of fluoride in the drinking water system, Suffolk received
two notices of violation, one from the Virginia Department of Health in 1989 and one from EPA
in 1991. After examining its options, the city chose POU treatment as the most attractive option
based on cost, timeliness, and O&M requirements. In 1993, the city and State agreed to the POU
demonstration project as part of the citys compliance plan.
The project team included EPA, the Virginia Department of Health, the City of Suffolk,
and three manufacturers of consumer drinking water products. The POU units used in the study
40
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
consisted of a sediment pre-filter, a high-flow TFM, a storage tank, and an activated carbon post-
filter. The units were installed in all homes in April 1992. Soon after project implementation, it
was discovered that the RO-treated water showed an elevated HPC. In July 1992, the treatment
system was reconfigured by centrally chlorinating the source water for Kings Point, replacing
the chlorine-sensitive high-flow TFMs with CAMs, and removing the activated carbon post-
filters.
All homeowners in the Kings Point subdivision were required to participate in the study
before the State and EPA would accept the POU alternative. The homeowners were also
required to sign a home access agreement that relieved the city of liability for damages caused by
the treatment units. The subdivision was divided into three regions, each served by a different
manufacturer of POU RO units.
The initial monitoring and O&M plan called for two residents from each region to
volunteer their homes as distribution sampling sites, where chemical and microbiological
samples would be collected monthly by a city official. The analyses were performed and
recorded by the Suffolk Department of Public Utilities. A representative of the manufacturer was
called if the unit required routine service. In the event of high HPC or fluoride levels, a
manufacturers service representative scheduled necessary maintenance with the homeowner.
Data were collected from these distribution sampling sites for 2 years.
A new plan was developed in 1994 to monitor all of the RO units and to demonstrate
typical maintenance. The manufacturers were responsible for scheduling and collecting samples
from residences in their respective regions on a quarterly basis. In a routine service call, pre- and
post-device free chlorine, total chlorine, and conductivity were recorded. Membranes were
replaced as needed, and additional service calls were made when lab analyses indicated
maintenance was necessary. In March 1995, the project was completed.
Fluoride levels in tap water were maintained below 2.0 mg/L in all households in the
subdivision. Variations in fluoride concentrations from month-to-month or residence-to-
residence were explained by membrane degradation. The life expectancy of the membranes
depended upon environmental conditions. High temperatures, bacteria, and high pH all
shortened the useful life of the membranes. Rejection rates of the membranes were monitored,
and membranes were replaced when their rejection rates fell below 70 percent, as measured by
post-device conductivity. Table 2.2.1.1 shows the data for treated water collected from one
residence and the raw feed during a quarterly sample collection.
The authors of the study estimated costs for the three compliance options considered by
the city: 1) using POU RO units; 2) connecting to Suffolk central treatment; and 3) installing
central treatment at Kings Point. The total annual cost per household of the POU treatment
strategy was 55 percent of the estimated annual cost per household of connecting to Suffolk
41
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options
EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
central treatment. Table 2.2.1.2 shows the cost estimates for each option. The third option was
found to be infeasible due to local discharge regulations. Although estimates of cost per gallon
treated were not available in the literature, one of the participating manufacturers estimated the
cost at $0.49 per gallon treated in their region. The capacity of the device offered by this
manufacturer was 4 to 6 gpd.
Table 2.2.1.1: Performance Data for a Typical POU RO Unit in Suffollc VA
Influent
(1/12195)
Effluent
(119/95)
organisms/l00 mL) <1
<1
Count (cfiilmL) 12
5
(mgfL) 5.62
0.352
(mgIL) 207
18.0
Solids (mgfL) 474
36
(NTU) 0.18
0.08
( umhoIcm) 768
62.5
The capital cost of the POU option is based on a leasing agreement that charges
households $25 per month per unit for rental and routine service. The City of Suffolk was given
the option of purchasing or leasing the equipment. The city chose to lease so that the distributor
would maintain responsibility for routine service and O&M activities. The purchase price of the
POU RO units used in this study was $995.
Table 2.2.1.2: Cost Estimates of Compliance Options for Suffollc VA (1995$)
Compliance Option
Capital Costs (S/year)
O&M Costs (S/year/unit)
Total Costs
( S /year o hold)
POU RO
$300 per household
$80 (parts)
$320 (labor, sample analyses)
$700
Connection to Suffolk
central treatment
$1,267 per household 2
Minimal
$1,267
1. POU equipment rental at $25/month/unit. Assumes one unit per household.
2. The total cost of connection to the community distribution system for 57 households was $813,000. These
costs were amortized at 8 percent for 30 years.
42
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options
EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
2.2.2 Various Sites in Arizona and illinois
AA POU devices designed for fluoride reduction were installed in several communities in
Arizona and Illinois to determine their effectiveness. This summary draws from reports written
by Bellen (1986) and Lykins (1992).
A portion of domestic water was treated with AA for drinking and cooking purposes at
Thunderbird Farms, Arizona and Papago Butte Ranch, Arizona. The Ruth Fisher Elementary
School (Tonopah, Arizona) was also equipped with AA units to reduce fluoride levels in
drinking water. The You and I Trailer Park (Wintersburg, Arizona) and the communities of
Parkersburg, Illinois and Bureau Junction, Illinois tested the effectiveness of POU AA devices in
reducing influent concentrations of arsenic as well as fluoride. The well water of the Illinois
communities was characterized by high levels of fluoride, alkalinity, and TDS.
Eight sites were equipped with POU units in the Thunderbird Farms project. Several
devices reduced fluoride concentrations below the local MCL of 1.4 mgfL for over 2 years.
Other devices had a shorter service life, due to media cementing or short-circuiting. Influent
arsenic and silica concentrations at these sites were reduced to non-detectable levels beyond
fluoride breakthrough. The unit installed at the You & I Trailer Park successfully treated 2,500
gallons of raw water with arsenic and fluoride concentrations of 15.7 mgfL and 0.086 mg/L,
respectively. Performance and cost data for the Arizona studies are given in Table 2.2.2.1.
Table 2.2.2.!: Performance and Cost Data for POU AA Devices in Arizona (1985$)
Study
Location
Number
of Sites
at Each
Location
Service
Area Type
Lu fluent
Fluoride
(mg/L)
Lnfluent
Alkalinity
(mWL as
CaCO,)
Mean
Treated
Water
Use
Volume to
Breakthrough
(gallons)
Total
Household
Cost per
Month 2
Thunderbird
Farms
8
Central
system with
single family
homes
2.6
200
1.4 gpd
>1,540
$4.44
Papago
Butte
I
Subsystem for
several
families
2.6
200
18.5 gpd
9,500
$4.60
Ruth Fisher
Elementary
School
You and I
1
I
Institution
Institution
4.4
15.7
80
40
8.5 gpd
5.5 gpd
1,000
2,500
$12.00
$6.27
Trailer Park
1. Defined as the point at which post-device fluoride concentration first exceeds the local MCL for fluoride.
2. Capital costs of $225, $350, $360, and $230, respectively, amortized at 10 percent for 20 years plus
maintenance
43
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options
EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Records from Thunderbird Farms indicate that 200 hours per month were required by the
water quality district to maintain 1,500 records for 643 customers. This translates to about 20
minutes per household per month. Telephone, postage, and miscellaneous supplies for the 643
customers were $1,275 per year in 1985 dollars. This translates to about $2 per customer per
year. Administrative costs could be reduced through voluntary labor and/or more active
homeowner participation.
In Illinois, 10 units were installed in Parkersburg and 40 units were installed in Bureau
Junction. These sites relied on public water systems that supplied ground water with high levels
of fluoride, alkalinity, and dissolved solids. The effect of raw water alkalinity on the
performance of AA POU devices is demonstrated in the data from the two Illinois sites. The
higher alkalinity of Parkersburg water resulted in fluoride breakthrough (fluoride concentrations
above 1.8 mg/L) after treating only 400 gallons of water. In conirast, fluoride breakthrough did
not occur at Bureau Junction until the unit had treated 1,300 gallons of water. Performance and
cost data for the units used in Parkersburg and Bureau Junction are listed in Table 2.2.2.2. The
maintenance costs outlined below were based on replacing the alumina cartridge as soon as the
fluoride concentration of treated water exceeded the local MCL.
Analysis of treated water indicated microbial colonization of the AA bed. However, this
colonization was not as extensive as that frequently found in activated carbon beds. Fuither, the
study did not provide evidence of AA colonization by coliform bacteria. Flushing the system for
several minutes and disinfecting taps before sampling was found to reduce post-device standard
plate counts (SPCs) by an order of magnitude in the Parkersburg study. See section 1.4 for
further discussion of bacterial colonization of POE and POU treatment devices.
Table 2.2.2.2: Performance and Cost Data for POUAA Devices in Illinois (1985$)
Study
Location
Number
of Sites
at Each
Location
Service
Area Type
Influent
Fluoride
(mgfL)
Influent
Alkalinity
(mgIL as
CaCO 3 )
Mean
Treated
Water
Use
Volume to
Breakthrough
Total
Household
Cost per
Month 2
Parkersburg
10
Central
system with
single family
homes
6.6
1,000
0.6 gpd
400; >110
$6.23
Bureau
Junction
40
Central
Y WIdi
single f mily
homes
6.0
540
0.8 gpd
1,300; 350
$4.25
1. Defined as the point at which post-device fluoride concentration first exceeds the local MCL for fluoride.
2. Capital costs of $273 and $285, respectively, amortized at 10 percent for 20 years plus maintenance.
44
-------
Cost Evaluation ofPOU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
2.2.3 Emington, Illinois
This case is summarized from Bellen (1986) and Lykins (1992). In Emington, Illinois 47
low-pressure RO units were installed by equipment dealers and monitored for 8 months. The
primary target contaminants were fluoride and TDS. The RO systems consisted of a 5-tan
particulate pm-filter, a GAC pm-filter, a pressurized 2-gallon tank, a GAC post-filter, and a
TFM. Treated water was stored in the tank and passed through the GAC post-filter before being
dispensed.
The POU units were effective in reducing fluoride contamination. An average rejection
rate of 86 percent from source water concentrations of 4.5 mgfL was observed in this study. TDS
rejection averaged 79 percent from source water concentrations of 2,620 mg/L. Wide variation
in rejection rates were observed. Most of the variation was attributed to a pressure drop across
the pre-filter assembly. As noted in section 1.3.5, RO membranes (especially CAMS) are more
effective for contaminant removal.in high water pressure environments.
The capital cost for POU RO in Emington ($540 in 1985 dollars) was calculated by
averaging several manufacturers quotes for devices, both with and without pressurizing pumps,
based on purchases of 40 to 50 units. The average installation cost charged by the manufacturers
($68 per unit) is included in this cost. While the POU RO units operated satisfactorily, a
significant drawback was their low water outputapproximately three gpd. To supplement their
needs, many homeowners purchased up to 30 gallons of bottled water per month at a cost of$I
per gallon.
Costs for RO central treatment in Emington were estimated by soliciting a quote. The
quoted cost of building and maintaining a central RO treatment plant in Emington was $60,000
(in 1985 dollars). The cost of a concrete block building to house the system was estimated at
$60,000. Operating costs were based upon a design flow of 16,500 gpd and totaled $0.66 per
1,000 gallons of water treated. Total operating costs included the cost of treatment chemicals
($0.lO/l,000 gallons), electrical power ($0.36/l,000 gallons), membrane replacement every 5
years ($0.18/1,000 gallons), and pm-filter cartridge replacement ($0.02/I ,000 gallons). Table
2.2.3.1 tabulates the performance and cost data for the Emington POU project and compares
POli costs to the estimated costs developed for central treatment.
The SPC of treated water was found to be an order of magnitude higher than that of
untreated water. Controlled sampling from various stages of the RO unit established that most
bacterial growth occurred in the GAC polishing unit (i.e., post-filter). Coliforms were found in 4
pre-device and 11 post-device samples (16 percent of all samples).
45
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options
EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Table 2.2.3.1: Performance and Cost Data for POU RO Devices in Emington, IL (1985$)
Number of Participating Sites
47
.
Service Area Type
Central system with
.
single family homes
Mean Treated Water Use (gpd)
0.8
Mean Flow Rates (gpd)
Product Water
Reject Water
2.9
22.5
Fluoride (mean mg/L)
Influent
Effluent
4.5
0.6
Total Dissolved Solids (mean mgfL)
Influent
Effluent
2,530
520
POU Treatment Costs
Average Cost per POU Unit
Total Cost per Household per Month 2
$540
$12.48
Estimated Central Treatment Costs
Total Capital Costs
Total Cost per Household per month 2
$120,000
$28.80
1. Average of six manu1 cturers; includes equipment plus installation costs.
2. Capital, amortized at 10 percent for 20 years plus maintenance.
2.3 Radium Treatment: Bellevue, Wisconsin
Radium, one of the alkaline-earth group metals, is present in all uranium minerals. It
decomposes in water and is somewhat more volatile than barium. Radium emits gamma rays as
well as alpha and beta particles. The half-life of radium-226, the most common isotope of
radium, is 1,599 years. A single gram of radium produces about 0.0001 mL of radon gas per day.
Inhalation, ingestion, or dermal exposure to radium may lead to cancer and other disorders.
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) established Plan Approval
Criteria (PA Criteria) for the use of POE systems to remove radium. These PA Criteria establish
the issues that need to be considered in proposals to the WDNR for the use of POE treatment.
The PA Criteria focus on five areas:
46
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
1. Legal and Economic Liabilities: The water system owner is responsible for the
quality of the water provided at each customers tap. Therefore, the plan must
provide treatment and monitoring protection equivalent to central treatment.
2. Effective Technology: Pilot plant/field testing is required to provide WDNR with
assurance that equipment proposed for use in a water system will effectively
remove radium. The requirements for inspection and testing after installation are
delineated.
3. O&M: The system owner must ensure that appropriate O&M is carried out for
every unit in the system. The system must ensure that treatment is provided when
owners object to equipment installation or tamper with the treatment device.
4. Monitoring: Annual monitoring for radium is required, along with monthly
inspections of every installation in the system. Allowances are made for use of
surrogate monitoring devices. Specifics for the monthly inspections are outlined.
5. Departmental Approval: Comparison with other possible radium removal
techniques is required prior to approval of a POE system.
En March 1988, the Town of Bellevue provided service to 1,248 residential users, 11
commercial users, II industrial users, and 2 municipal services. The water supply for the town
contains radium (both Ra-226 and Ra-228) in excess of the MCL established by EPA (20 pCiIL).
It is important to note that this summary was based on a feasibility study, not on a demonstration
project.
Bellevue draws its water from three wells. The raw water characteristics of each well are
presented in Table 2.3.1. The centrally supplied water is subjected only to chlorination prior to
distribution to the community.
The purpose of the study in Bellevue was to determine the feasibility of achieving
compliance with radium regulations using POE CX units. Radium levels can be reduced
efficiently with the IX softening technique, with reduction occurring beyond the point where the
resin ceases to remove calcium and magnesium ions. The study addressed the issues identified
by EPA, the WDNR, and the Wisconsin Department of Industrial, Labor and Human Resources
that need to be considered in approving plans for the use of POE systems to reduce radium
concentrations in household water.
47
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Table 2.3.1: Source Water Quality of Wells in Bellevue, WI
Well Number One
Contaminant (1/4/72)
Well Number Two
(10t2175)
Well Number Three
(12/24/80)
TotalAlkalmity(mgILasCaCO 3 ) 164
150
180
(mg/I.. as CaCO 3 ) 452
372
344
(mg/L) 1.0
0.74
0.14
Solids (mgfL) 848
680
614
(mglL) 124
98
92
(mgfL) 35
30
28
(mgfL) 90
70
57
7.8
7.6
7.8
(pCiIL) 10.0
8.0
15.0
(pCifL) 5.5
6.0
3.9
Water softener vendors servicing Bellevue were contacted to characterize the softeners
already installed in the town. Seventy-eight percent of all customers already had water softeners
because of the extreme hardness of the water. Typical characteristics included:
A capacity of 10,000 to 40,000 grains.
An effective resin life of about 20 years. Some installations in Bellevue had been
in service for 13 or more years.
A timer to ensure periodic regeneration.
The water softeners typically treated the entire household water supply (hot and cold
taps), with the exception of outside connections. The most common mslintenance problems were
overflow of the softeners brine tank, malfunction of the timer mechanism, and the inaccessibility
of the treatment units. Therefore, maintenance had to be completed at the customers
convenience. One company had over 200 house keys for service access.
The majority of treatment units used in Bellevue were purchased. Vendors did not rent
treatment devices to the owners of mobile homes because of the high potential for property
damage due to overflow of the brine tank.
48
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
The feasibility study developed a detailed cost evaluation for POE CX treatment. Cost
data were obtained from two local manufacturers/distributors of softening equipment and from
residential and commercial surveys conducted by the authors. Cost estimates were developed for
the implementation of two different POE treatment strategies: 1) providing softeners that would
not treat outside connections; and 2) providing softeners that would treat all household
connections (including outside connections).
The evaluation was completed assuming that softeners would be provided to all
residences and businesses that did not already have softening equipment, with sizing based on
water use. For those households already equipped with softeners, plumbing modifications for
treating outside hose connections and for treating all indoor water were estimated. A complete
inspection of each system would have been required to establish these costs individually.
Hardness monitors were installed with all treatment units. A post-installation inspection,
including microbiological analysis of a sample of the treated water, was also assumed.
Residential and commercial survey results were used to estimate the percentage of sites where
installation would be difficult because pipes were not exposed or only a portion of the hot or cold
water supply was treated.
To permit inter-scenario comparison, capital costs were amortized and added to the
annual O&M costs to arrive at the annual average cost of each treatment alternative. For this
analysis, an annual interest rate of nine percent and an amortization period of 20 years were used.
Water billing data from town records for 1987 were evaluated to provide water use
information. Other parameters used to evaluate costs included influent water hardness, media
exchange capacity, regeneration interval, and salt requirements. These data are available in the
full NSF report.
Treating water dispensed at outside connections significantly increases the cost of
treatment because additional equipment is required to ensure that all residences have a constant
supply of treated water. To meet the additional demand, two softeners would be required for
each system. The replacement of all existing softeners was considered for this alternative
because of the difficulty associated with retrofitting.
The results of the cost evaluation are summarized in Tables 2.3.2 and 2.3.3.
49
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Table 2.3.2: Cost Data for POE CX Devices (No Outside Connections) in Bellevue, WI (1989$)
Item
Cost
Equipment and standard installation costs:
New softeners - residential
New softeners - commercial
Perret Mobile Home Park
Parkview Mobile Home Park
Monitors/dialers with central station
$76, 100
$42,700
$9,200
$37,000
$265,500
Special installation and repair costs:
Residential
Commercial
Mobile Home Parks
$48,600
$2,900
$9,500
Microbiological Analysis (first year)
$25,600
Contingencies (15% of capital cost)
$77,600
Total capital costs
$594,700
Annual capital costs (9%, 2Oyrs.)
Annual O&M and monitoring costs
$65, 100
$201,700
Total annual cost
S266,800
Cost per connection (1,282 connections)
$238.92
50
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Table 2.3.3: Cost Data for POE CX Devices (With Outside Connections) in Bellevue, WI 0989$)
Item
Cost
Equipment and standard installation costs
New softeners - residential
New softeners - commercial
Perret M.H. Park
Parkview M.H. Park
Monitors/dialers wI central station
Backflow preventers
Salvage value for old softeners (1,013 units, $25/unit)
$1,027,500
$42,700
$9200
$37,000
$265,500
$36,500
($25,300)
Special installation and repair costs
Residential
Commercial
Mobile home parks
$23,800
$1,500
$9,500
Microbiological analysis (first year)
$25,600
Contingencies (15% of capital cost)
$218,000
Total capital costs
$1,671,500
Annual capital costs (9%, 20 yrs.)
Annual O&M and monitoring costs
$18,300
$230,300
Total annual cost
$413,300
Cost per connection (1.282 connections)
$322.39
The authors of this feasibility study compared the annual cost of implementing a POE
treatment strategy with the cost of several alternative treatment strategies available to the town.
The costs used for the alternative treatment options were obtained from qn engineering report
prepared by Bellevues engineers in December 1987. The costs presented in the engineering
report were escalated by the authors of the study by 5 percent per year for comparison with the
POE costs developed in 1989. A sumrnaiy comparison is offered in Table 2.3.4.
51
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options
EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Table 2.3.4. Costs of Compliance Options for Bellevue, WI (1989$)
.
Compliance Option
Capital
Costs
Annual
O&M Costs
Total Annual
Costs
Cost per
2
Connection
Manganese greensand treatment by town 3
$134,100
$39,000
$173,! OΤ
$135.02
Central CX treatment by town 3
$130,400
$83,300
$213,700
$166.69
Service from Green Bay 3
$168,400
$95, 100
$263,500
$205.54
POE softening:
Without hose bibs (no outside connection)
With hose bibs (outside connection)
$65,100
$183,000
$20 1,700
$230,300
$306,300
$413,300
$238.92
$322.39
1. Capital costs are annualized at 9 percent over 20 years.
2. 1,282 connections.
3. Costs for these alternatives were obtained from a December 1987 engineering report. The costs presented in
this table were increased by 5 percent per year for comparison with the POE costs developed in 1989.
4. O&M cost includes $124,500 for purchase of water from Green Bay and an allowance of $46,000 for cost
savings due to reduced power consumption at wells.
2.4 Uranium Treatment: Various Sites in Colorado and New Mexico
Uranium occurs in numerous minerals such as pitchblende, uraninite, carnotite, autunite,
uranophane, davidite, and tobernite; it is believed to be as abundant as arsenic. Uranium has 23
isotopes, all of which are radioactive. Naturally occurring uranium consists primarily ofU-238.
The half-life of uranium-238 is 4.46 x i0 years. Uranium is of great importance as a nuclear
fuel used to generate electrical power.
Uranium and its compounds are highly toxic, both chemically and radiologically. High
U-235 content increases irradiation risk. Uranium concentrations in ground waters at U.S.
Department of Energy sites indicate that uranium is highly sorbed. Uranium sorption is likely
due to its reduction from the hexavalent state, where it is introduced via surface waters, to the
tetravalent state found in confmed aquifers. The natαral presence of uranium in many soils has
recently become a concern to homeowners because the decay of uranium may lead to the build-
up of radon gas in nearby homes and to the contamination of ground water supplies.
EPAs Drinking Water Research Division (DWRD) in Cincinnati, Ohio conducted a
uranium removal study in Colorado and New Mexico (Lassovsky 1983). Twelve AX tanks, each
containing 0.25 cubic feet of a strong base anion resin, were involved in the study. Six units
were set to operate intermittently to simulate typical household consumption patterns. The
remaining six were operated in a continuous flow setting. Flow restrictors limited flow to 0.25
gpm. All units were routinely sampled and were equipped with flow meters to measure the
volume of water treated. The influent uranium concentration ranged from 22 to 104 j ig of total
52
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
uranium/L. After approximately two years of operation, effluent levels of uranium were below 1
ig total uranium/L for all but three of the units. Uranium breakthrough for these units occurr d
after 8,000, 10,000, and 13,000 bed volumes had been successfully treated. The AX tanks used
in this study cost $125 each (in 1983 dollars). Although units were installed by EPA personnel
and field contractors, the installation costs were not available.
2.5 Various Inorganic Compounds: Cincinnati, Ohio
A POU RO unit identical to those used in San Ysidro, New Mexico was installed in an
EPA DWRD laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio. This system consisted of a 5-j. m pre-filter, an
activated carbon pre-filter, a GAC post-filter, a spiral wound polyaxnide membrane, and a 3-
gallon storage tank. The installed cost of the RO unit was $325 ($289.50 for the unit, $35.50 for
installation in 1986 dollars). Test water was pumped at a pressure of 42±2 psi and consisted of
Cincinnati tap water spiked with a specific contaminant. Fourteen contaminants were
successfully treated by the RO unit and TDS levels were substantially reduced as detailed in
Table 2.5.1. While this study did not determine the life of the itO membrane fbr any single water
supply, it did demonstrate that RO systems generally provide good removal of most inorganic
contaminants.
Table 2.5.1: Performance Data for POU RO Device in Laboratoy Testing Cincinnati, OH
Contaminant
Influent
Concentration
(mg L)
Removal
Rate (%)
Contaminant
Influent
Concentration
(mg(L)
Removal
Rate (%)
Arsenic ( III)
0.101
73.3
Mercury
(inorganic)
0.017
>97.1
Beryllium
0.043
> 97.7
Nickel
0.239
> 95.0
Cadmium
0.045
> 95.6
Selenium (IV)
0.075
> 99.3
Chromium (II)
0.19
> 97.4
Selenium (VI)
0.083
> 94.0
Chromium (111)
0.202
> 97.5
Uranium (total)
0.0692
> 99.0
Copper (II)
4.81
>98.0
Uranium (total)
0.1825
>99.0
Fluoride
5.95
98.3
Zinc (11)
5.42
> 99.0
Lead
0.28
>98.3
53
-------
Cost Evaluation of POUIPOE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
2.6 Nitrate Treatment
Primary sources of organic nitrates in natural waters include human sewage and livestock
manure, especially from feedlots. The inorganic nitrates that most often contaminate drinking
water are potassium nitrate and ammonium nitrate. Potassium and ammonium nitrates are used
primarily as fertilizers, though they are also used in explosives. According to the Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI), over 112 million pounds of inorganic nitrates were released from 1991 to 1993.
The largest releases occurred in Georgia and California.
Because they are highly soluble and poorly retained by soil, nitrates are very mobile.
They move at approximately the same rate as water and are likely to migrate into ground and
surface water supplies.
Ingestion of nitrates may lead to acute health problems for children less than 6 months
old. Nitrates are converted to nitrites by bacteria within the mouth and stomach. In adults, the
acidity of the stomach is usually great enough that bacterial growth and the consequent
conversion of nitrate to nitrite are negligible. Nitrites react with hemoglobin, producing
methemoglobin. This interferes with the oxygen-carrying capacity of blood and may lead to the
onset of methemoglobinemia, or blue-baby syndrome. Methemoglobinemia is an acute
condition that may result in asphyxiation and death. Chronic exposure to high levels of nitrates
may lead to diuresis, increased starchy deposits, and hemorrhaging of the spleen. A 1990 EPA
publication (EPA 1990) provides a thorough review of the literature available on the occurrence
of methemoglobinemia in infants, children, and adults.
2.6.1 Suffolk County, New York
A 1983 study evaluated various water supply options for the towns of Riverhead and
Southhold, both located in the predominantly rural North Fork of Suffolk County. This case was
summarized from Lykins (1992). Due to the size and demographics of the communities, it was
determined that the development of public water supplies throughout the contaminated areas
would be prohibitively expensive. Individual POUIPOE units were recommended for these
contaminated areas. Eighteen units, provided by 10 manufacturers, were installed in Riverhead
and Southhold homes that received contaminated water. The performfince of the units was
monitored through sampling and analysis of the raw and treated waters.
POE devices along with countertop and line bypass POU units were demonstrated in this
study. Several treatment technologies were tested, including GAC, IX, RO, and aeration. All
units demonstrated the ability to remove the contaminants of concern to the necessary levels, and
consumers were satisfied with the perfonnance of the units. Table 2.6.1.1 summarizes the water
quality problems, the types of POU/POE devices used to treat the problems, and the performance
of each unit.
54
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options
EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Table 2.6.1.1: Performance Data for POU and POE Devices in Suffolk County, NY
Unit
Number
Water Quality
Problem
., .
iypeorDniee
Average Nitrate
Average Organics
Inhluent
(mg/L)
Effluent
(mg/L)
Influent
(pg/L)
Effluent
( sg L)
I
Nitrate
Countertop (GAC+IX)
92
3.3
NA
NA
2
Nitrate
Countcttop (GAC+IX)
7.7
24
NA
NA
3
Nitrate, chloride
Line bypass (R04GAC)
10.8
4.6
NA
NA
4
Nitrate
Line bypass (R04OAC)
99
43
NA
NA
5
Nitrate, chionde
Line bypass (R04GAC)
04
<0.2
NA
NA
6
Nitrate, VOC
Countcrtop (DishlIer)
12.2
<0.2
12
<2
7
Nitrate
Line bypass (RO+GAC)
II I
03
NA
NA
8
Nitrate
Line bypass (RO4OAC)
77
0.2
NA
NA
9
VOC
POE (GACl.0 cu. IL)
NA
NA
58
<2
10
Nitrate
Line bypass (ROIGAC)
11.2
0.3
NA
NA
II
VOC
POE (QAC-O.5 cu. ft.)
NA
NA
53
<2
12
Nitrate
Batch (distiller)
9.3
0.2
NA
NA
13
Iron, carbofliran
Counte itop(fl ltei+GAC)
2 .3i
01
lV
< 2
14
Manganese
Line bypass (RO4GAC)
1.7
0.07
NA
NA
15
Nitrate
Line bypass (RO+OAC)
8.6
0.8
NA
NA
16
Iron
POE (acrauon+GAC+filtcr)
096
01
NA
NA
17
Nitrate
Line bypass (RO+GAC)
II 5
03
NA
NA
I. Average values for iron
2. Average values for carbofuran
3. Average values for manganese
Despite the success of the units, the sampling results during the study revealed several
problems that could be traced to improper installation or inadequate maintenance. Several units
developed plumbing leaks that required repair. Organic contaminants were found to be leaching
into treated water from three units due to solvents used during manufacturing or assembly
processes. High levels of copper were found in the effluent of two units that used copper
discharge lines. Once these units were replaced, all units functioned satisfactorily for the
duration of the study.
55
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Bacteria were present in samples from all of the treatment units that included a carbon
filter. These data confirm the observations of other researchers that bacteria will grow on GAC
(see section 1.4). However, no evidence of pathogenic bacteria growth was isolated, even in
samples that exhibited elevated plate counts.
The effluent of three units tested positive for coliform after installation, though follow-up
samples were satisfactory. Two of the contaminated units were countertop models, which are
more susceptible to cross-contamination by homeowner activity (see section 1.2.1). Additional
disinfection procedures should be followed before and after installation of these models if they
are selected by the water system for use in a compliance strategy.
RO units #3 and #4 exhibited much lower efficiencies than RO units #7 and #8. This was
probably due to the lower efficiency of the CAMs used in units #3 and #4 relative to the thin film
composite membranes used in units #7 and #8 (see section 1.3.6).
The authors provide representative cost ranges for the various types of POUIPOE
treatment units demonstrated during this study. Table 2.6.1.2 outlines the initial capital and
installation costs, but does not incorporate annual O&M costs for these units. Total average
annual costs per home for all the POU equipment evaluated are summarized in Table 2.6.1.3.
These data were developed from a survey of 1,650 households in Riverhead and 2,250
households in Southhold. Total average annual costs include amortized initial capital costs
annual O&M costs, and annual costs for monitoring and administering the POU program.
Capital and O&M costs were estimated from manufacturers literature. The study proposes that
bulk purchase of treatment units would result in lower (discounted) per-unit costs. The cost
ranges represent units of different capacities.
Table 2.6.1.2: Representative Cost Data for POU and POE Devices (1985$)
Treatment
Technology
Single Tap (P0(J)
Whole Tap (POE)
capital Cost
Installation Cost
Capital Cost
Installation Cost
Distillation
S200-$800
S 100-Si 50,
$9,500-S 11,000
$2004300
GAC
$200-$350
$604100
51,100-53,000
$754150
IX
$1 00-5300
$60-S 100
51,500-52,000
5150-5200
Filtration
5150-5200
580-5100
51,500-52,000
5150-5200
RO
5500-5800
570- 5150
56,000-58,500
5250-5350
1. This cost includes the RO unit, a storage tank, and a dispenser pump.
A detailed description of the monitoring plan, the capacity of the POU units, a full
discussion of the division of responsibilities, and the cost per gallon of water treated were not
56
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options
EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
provided in the literature reviewed. However, the study did emphasize the need for conservative
design of POU/POE Ireatment devices to preclude premature contaminant breakthrough due to
interactions between multiple contaminants (and from contaminants as yet undiscovered in the
area).
Table 2.6.1.3: Average Annual Cost of POU Treatment for Riverhead and Southhold NY (1985$)
Cost Description
Cost
Amortized Start-up Cost
$160-S 170
O&MCosts
850-8100
Monitoring and Administrative Costs
8 15-820
Total Annual Costs
$2254290
1. A 1 5-percent and a 5-percent surcharge were assessed to the initial purchase and installation costs (start-up
costs) to cover contingency and associated costs, respectively. Total start-up costs were amortized at 12
percent over an 8 year period.
2.62 POE and Central Treatment Cost Comparison
Lykins (1992) compared the costs of POE and central treatment units using AX
technology designed to remove 95 percent of influent nitrate. The analysis compares the costs of
the treatment alternatives for two communities with different demographics: a trailer park and a
subdivision. Each residential area has 150 households (approximately 500 consumers) requiring
40 gpm. The trailer park, which is densely populated, was assumed to require only 3,400 feet of
pipe. However, the more sparsely populated subdivision would require 15,840 feet of pipe to
connect all households to a central plant. Eight-inch diameter polyvinylchloride (PVC) pipe was
used to estimate distribution system costs. Additional costs for trenching, embedment, backfill,
paving, and variable connection costs (given different population densities) were also
incorporated. Cost data for these items were taken from Standardized Costs for Water
Distribution Systems (Gumerman 1992). The use of ductile iron pipe instead of PVC pipe would
double the cost of the distribution system.
The central AX treatment system considered in this study consisted of a 25-cubic foot
resin bed that provides a minimum of 4.7 minutes of EBCT. The resin bed was assumed to be
regenerated daily. The entire unit was assumed to be purchased with 10 percent financing for 20
years. The POE AX unit was priced at $2,000 with 10 percent financing for 10 years. The resin
in the POE unit was assumed to be auto-regenerated. O&M for the POE unit was assumed to be
covered by a service professional at a cost of $15 per month. Table 2.6.2.1 compares the cost of
the POE and central treatment alternatives given the assumption that the distribution system is
constructed of PVC pipe.
57
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Table 2.6.2.1. Costs of AX Compliance Options for Communities of D ffering Density I (1990$)
Residential Area
Central Treatment Cost
POE Treatment Cost 2
Trailer Park
$31 2/house/year
$3 .24/1,000 gallons
$480/house/year
S4.98/1,000 gallons
Subdivision
$574/house/year
$5 .96/1,000_gallons
1. Central treatment costs include the cost of constructing a distribution system using PVC pipe. The central
treatment system was amortized at 10 percent for 20 years.
2. Outfitting the entire community requires 150 POE units. POE units were amortized at 10 percent for 10 years.
The one-unit central treatment alternative would be the most cost-effective option for the
trailer park. However, even though the distribution system was constructed from relatively
inexpensive PVC pipe, the POE alternative would be more cost-effective than central treatment
for the subdivision. Table 2.6.2.2 presents the costs of the treatment alternatives assuming the
use of ductile iron pipe instead of PVC pipe for the distribution system.
Table 2.6.2.2: Costs of AX Compliance Options for Communities of Differing Density!! (1990$)
Residential Area
Central Treatment Cost
POE Treatment Cost 2
Trailer Park
$468/house/year
$4.86/I ,000 gallons
$480/house/year
$4.98/I ,000 gallons
Subdivision
$86 1/house/year
$8.94/I ,000 gallons
1. Central treatment costs include the cost of constructing a distribution system using ductile iron pipe. The central
treatment system was amortized at 10 percent for 20 years.
2. Outfitting the entire community requires 150 POE units. POE units were amortized at 10 percent for 10 years.
Again, a central treatment system would be less expensive than equipping each household
in the trailer park with a POE unit. However, the cost differential is much smaller than that
presented in Table 2.6.2.1. The POE treatment alternative would be much less expensive than
the central treatment alternative for the subdivision if ductile iron pipe were used for the
distribution system.
2.7 Radon Treatment: Various States
Radon is a naturally occurring radionuclide that gained high visibility in the 1980s when
extraordinary levels were found in new, well-insulated houses. However, radon may also be
found in groundwater and can have a severe impact on human health when high concentrations
are ingested over a long period of time. The most common isotope of radon, radon-222, has a
half-life of 3.823 days and is an alpha emitter. EPA has recently withdrawn a proposed rule that
58
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
would create a primary MCL for radon of 300 pCi/L. However, the Agency must submit another
proposed rule for regulation of radon by August 1999. Therefore, many water systems will need
to develop a means of lowering the radon levels found in the water distributed to their
consumers.
A report completed by EPA in 1989 evaluated the effectiveness of full-scale (i.e., central
treatment) GAC and aeration (diffused bubble and packed tower) treatment of small community
groundwater supplies contaminated with very high levels of radon (Kinner 1989). Two low-
technology treatment options, radon loss in the central distribution system and modified
atmospheric storage tanks (e.g., coarse bubble aeration), were also evaluated. Since the focus of
this report is on POU and POE treatment, only the evaluation of POE technology will be
summarized in this section.
To determine the effectiveness of POE GAC units in removing radon from drinking
water, 121 POE GAC units in 12 states were monitored to varying degrees over seven years.
Each house was equipped with a separate POE GAC system consisting of fiberglass vessels filled
with either 1.0, 1.7, or 3.0 cubic feet of GAC, supported on a bed of gravel. The units were
installed downstream of the existing pressure tank and operated in the downflow mode. Sixty
percent of the installations were done by the homeowner without outside assistance.
Most units underwent initial sampling and analysis 3 wηeks after installation to confirm
the success of the installation. Sampling and analyses were conducted every 6 months thereafter
for a period of 2 years. Samples were collected by homeowners and mailed to the Radon
Research Laboratory at the University of Maine for liquid scintillation analysis. Some units were
selected for long-term or monthly monitoring. The monitoring protocol used either direct syringe
scintillation vials or glass septum capped vials (VOC type).
The GAC units in this study treated water supplies with a wide variety of radon levels,
ranging from 2,576 pCi/L to more than 1,000,000 pCiIL. Average household water use was
estimated at 157 gpd for purposes of determining performance. Performance data for the POE
GAC devices observed in this study are presented in Table 2.7.1.
In most cases, O&M costs were negligible. In a very few instances, GAC beds had to be
replaced at a cost of $130 per cubic foot of GAC. Moreover, if standards are set for the
accumulation of lead-2 10, bed changes may be necessary as often as every few months, making
POE GAC treatment prohibitively expensive. The cost of radon analyses was reported to be $40
per year in this study. Gamma emissions from POE GAC units used to treat for radon may lead
to negative health effects. Exposure to gamma radiation depends upon the level of radon in the
raw water and the location and shielding of the GAC unit. Therefore the need for shielding or
other protective measures must be evaluated for each specific site. Cost data for the POE GAC
devices observed in this study are presented in Table 2.7.2.
59
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options
EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Table 2. 7.1: Performance Data for POE GAC Devices
GAC Device
Flow (gpd)
Average
EBCT (hrs)
Expected Removal
Rate
Observed Removal
Rate
GAC 10
157
1.14
96.7%
90.7%
GAC 17
157
L94
99.7%
92.5%
GAC 30
157
3.43
> 99.99%
98.6%
Table 2.7.2: Cost Data for POE GAC Devices
GAC Device
Cost of
GAC Unit
Cost of
Sediment
Filter
Cost of
Water
Shield
In
staHation
Cost
Total Cost
GAC 10
$600
$50
$25
$100
$775
GAC 17
$750
$50
$90
$100
$990
GAC3O
$950
$50
$125
$100
$1,225
Note: shipping costs (averaging $30 per unit) were paic by the installer.
2.8 Aldicarb Treatment
Aldicarb is a pesticide used on a variety of crops in nearly all areas of the nation. This
organic contaminant acts as a cholinesterase inhibitor. Symptoms of exposure include sweating,
muscular weakness, headaches, vomiting, and nausea. Available evidence suggests that the
neuro-behavioral effects associated with exposure to aldicarb are short-lived and that no
accumulation effects occur over time. Aldicarb was not found to cause statistically significant
increases in tumor incidence in mice or rats in feeding studies or in mice in a skin painting study.
Available assays are inadequate to assess the carcinogenic potential of aldicarb (IRIS 1993a).
Since the effects of aldicarb exposure on humans are acute rather than chronic, POE
devices are more appropriate for the treatment of this contaminant than POU devices because
they provide a greater margin of safety. GAC devices have proven effective in removing aldicarb
from raw water in several communities.
2.8.1 Suffolk County, New York
Historically, Suffolk County has been an area characterized by heavy agricultural activity.
Fertilization practices and extensive pesticide and herbicide use have led to widespread
60
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
contamination of local ground water by nitrate and various organic chemicals. Local geology and
hydrology allow these contaminants to percolate unchanged through the coarse sand and gravel
of the upper geological formation directly to the groundwater table.
Since 1978, Suffolk County has monitored ground water for agricultural contaminants.
During monitoring, nitrate was detected at levels exceeding 15 mg/L. Further, four agricultural
compounds aldicarb, carbofuran, 1 ,2-dichloropropane (1 ,2-DCP), and I ,2,3-trichloropropane
(1,2,3-TCP) were found at levels greater than 100 gfL. Between April and June 1980,
approximately 15 percent of sampled wells were found to have aldicarb concentrations that
exceeded the level considered safe for consumption (i.e., the New York State guideline for
aldicarb of 7 igfL. After this discovery, the manufacturer of aldicarb prohibited its sale in
Suffolk County. In 1985, 11.7 percent of 2,000 wells sampled exceeded the State guideline for
aldicarb. Despite the fact that carbofuran was available both before and after aldicarb, only 1.8
percent of the same 2,000 wells exceeded the State guideline for carbofuran. I ,2-DCP testing
began in 1980. In one Suffolk County community, DCP was found in 17 of 33 wells. Two of
these wells had l,2-DCP levels of approximately 50 Mg/L (the New York State guideline for 1,2-
DCP).
From 1983 to 1987, more than 3,000 GAC units were used in Suffolk County to treat
water with an average aldicarb concentration of 87 JAg/L. Based on this experience, it was
determined that a GAC filter composed of 1 cubic foot of activated carbon could treat 170,325 L
of water with an influent concentration of 100 g aldicarb/L before breakthrough (an aldicarb
concentration greater than 7 ug aldicarblL) occurred.
Five GAC treatment units were tested to determine their capacity to remove aldicarb from
Long Island ground water. Two POU units, with 1.04 and 0.94 pounds of carbon, respectively,
treated less than 1,000 gallons of water before the effluent exceeded the New York State
guidelines for aldicarb. However, all three POE units (15.0 to 17.5 pounds of 12x40 or 20x40
mesh carbon) proved effective in removing aldicarb from household water. In June 1980,
equivalent GAC systems were provided free of charge by the manufacturer of aldicarb to all
households dependent upon Suffolk County water sources that exceeded the New York State
guideline level.
More than 100 GAC POE units were eventually monitored on a bimonthly basis in
association with this program. Units la ted for 37 percent to 158 percent of their advertised
lifetime. Over 93 percent of all monitored units operated satisfactorily as designed. Premature
breakthrough of aldicarb occurred primarily as a result of improper installation or O&M
difficulties such as an inadequate backwashing cycle or homeowner negligence.
Concerns were raised regarding the possibility of bacterial colonization of the GAC
media. However, testing for total coliform, SPC, and pseudomonas did not reveal large-scale
microbial activity on the GAC. Two reasons for the lack of microbial activity were presented.
61
-------
Cost Evaluation ofPOU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
First, Long Island ground waters are characterized by a general absence of bacteria. Most
bacteria are effectively removed by the soils. Second, each POE unit was equipped with a
backwash system. Backwashing tends to mitigate bacterial growth while removing sediments,
such as iron, that may hamper GAC performance. Due to the lack of evidence of bacterial
colonization of the POE GAC units, disinfection was not necessazy for units used in Suffolk
County. See section 1.4 for additional information on the potential for microbial colonization of
GAC treatment units.
Used carbon was shipped out of state to a carbon manufacturer, where it was regenerated
via a high temperature (1,000 degrees Celsius) process. The regenerated carbon was recycled for
use in industrial applications. Only virgin carbon was used in the treatment units provided under
the manufacturer-sponsored program.
2.8.2 Various Sites in Florida
Several of Floridas public water supplies were analyzed early in the organic quality
testing work done by EPA. EPA efforts and testing by the states laboratories revealed
widespread contamination of Floridas ground water. Leaking underground petroleum storage
tanks had released benzene and other hydrocarbons into the ground water. The agricultural
chemicals aldicarb and ethyldibromide (EDB) were also found in samples taken from many
private wells. Of the 12,400 wells analyzed for EDB through October 1987, 1,530 were found to
have EDB concentrations greater than the then-current MCL of 0.02 ig/L.
Floridas Ground Water Contamination Task Force (GWCTF) determined that protection
from EDB would need to be afforded to the entire household. Therefore, POE treatment options
were investigated for those homes for which connection to a central treatment system would be
prohibitively expensive. GAC was found to remove EDB and hydrocarbons from ground water.
In light of this finding and the need to provide whole-house protection, POE GAC units were
determined to be the best method to treat the water from contaminated private wells. Since the
volume of water, usage habits, and other important parameters that influence the effectiveness of
GAC were typically unknown, two very conservative filter designs were devised by the GWCTF.
Type I POE GAC units consisted of a 5-j m pre-fllter, a 2-cubic foot GAC filter, a UV
disinfection element, and a water meter. Type II POE GAC units were installed when higher
contamination was found. Type II units were identical to the Type I units, except that they
incorporated additional GAC filters to ensure adequate contaminant removal. If expected water
consumption exceeded 10 gpm, larger GAC units were provided to handle the increased flow.
By October 1987, 780 Type I and 62 Type II units were installed. Seven larger GAC
units (with between 50 gpm and 200 gpm capacity) and three municipal systems (with capacities
greater than 3,000 gpm) were also installed by October 1987 as part of the overall corrective
effort for EDB. The installed cost of each Type I unit was $1,000, and the installed cost of each
Type II unit was $1,050. Carbon filters were replaced twice each year, while the UV bulb was
62
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFF Do Not Cite or Quote
replaced annually. The annual cost of annual carbon and bulb replacement was estimated to be
approximately $890 per POE unit. To ensure that public health concerns were not compromised,
an additional annual cost of $400 for sampling and lab analyses was included.
2.9 Trichloroethylene Treatment
The VOC TCE is a commonly used industrial solvent. TCE is often used as a chemical
building block to synthesize other chemicals. It has been found in at least 460 of 1,179
hazardous waste sites on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL). Various federal and state
surveys indicate that between 9 percent and 34 percent of the water supply sources in the United
States may be contaminated with TCE.
Individuals that have been exposed to TCE may suffer from dii iness, headaches, slowed
reaction time, sleepiness, and facial numbness. Irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat can also
occur under theseconditions. More severe effects on the central nervous system, such as
unconsciousness and death, can occur from drinking or breathing high levels of TCE. In general,
the health effects associated with exposure to TCE dissipate when exposure ends. However,
several animal studies have shown that ingesting or breathing levels of TCE that are higher than
typical background levels can produce nervous system changes; liver and kidney damage
(especially among those who drink alcohol); tumors of the liver, kidney, lung, and male sex
organs; and possibly leukemia (ATSDR 1989).
Since the effects of TCE exposure on humans may be acute and severe, and since TCE is
a volatile chemical, POE devices are more appropriate for the treatment of this contaminant than
POU devices because they provide a greater margin of safety and protect against inhalation
exposure. GAC devices have proven effective in removing TCE from raw water in several
communities.
2.9.1 Byron, Illinois
This case is summarized from a paper presented by Bianchin at the 1987 Conference on
Point-of-Use Treatment of Drinking Water. Byron Johnson is a 20-acre salvage yard located in a
rural area of northern Illinois. In the 1960s the salvage yard was operated as a junk yard. From
1970 to 1972, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) conducted periodic
inspections to identif y operating deficiencies. In 1972, the IEPA ordered the yard closed, and in
1974 the salvage yard ceased operation. In December 1982, the site was placed on the Superfund
NPL. A remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) was begun by IEPA. The study focused
on contamination directly on or below the site. Both major aquifers in the area were found to be
contaminated by VOCs. In addition, cyanide and some inorganic compounds were found in the
ground water beneath the salvage yard.
63
-------
Cost Evaluation ofPOU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
From 1983 through 1985, contamination levels in nearby (down-gradient) wells were
monitored by EPA, IEPA, and the Illinois Department of Public Health. Private wells were
found with ICE levels of up to 710 ptgfL. In July 1984, EPA placed residents in areas adjacent
to the salyage yard (i.e., the Dirk Farm area), whose water was characterized by concentrations
greater than 200 pg TCE/L, on bottled water as a temporary measure. POU and POE devices
may be used much like bottled water to alleviate the immediate danger of contaminated drinking
water. Therefore, in May 1986, EPA installed POU GAC treatment devices for residents using
bottled water as an interim measure. In July 1986, EPA initiated a monthly sampling program of
these units to monitor the effectiveness of the POE devices.
In October 1985, EPA undertook a phased feasibility study to investigate the health threat
posed to another nearby development from exposure to the contaminated water supply. Rock
River Terrace Subdivision is located 1.5 miles down gradient of the salvage yard along the Rock
River. Wells in the subdivision were contaminated with up to 48 pg TCE/L. Three treatment
alternatives were analyzed for their potential to solve the subdivisions contamination problem.
First, all residences could be connected to the Byron Municipal Treatment Facility. This
alternative would cost approximately $900,000 (in 1986 dollars) and would take 1 to 2 years to
implement. Second, all affected homes could be supplied with bottled water. This alternative
was estimated to cost $91,150 per year and could be implemented almost immediately.
However, since the water entering local households is not treated, and since bottled water would
only be used for drinking or cooking, this alternative would provide no protection from
inhalation of or direct contact with contaminated water. Third, each household could be
equipped with a POU treatment unit. This alternative would cost $26,000 and installation would
take about 3 months. However, as with the bottled water option, since all taps would not be
treated, residents would not be completely protected from any health problems resulting from
inhalation or direct contact with contamiiiated water. Fourth, each household could be equipped
with a POE treatment unit. This alternative would cost $115,000 and, like the third option,
would require about 3 months unit installation within the community. The fourth alternative
would provide treated water at all taps within the household.
The fourth alternative was selected as the strategy most protective of public health and the
most economically feasible. Beginning in September 1986, EPA installed POE GAC systems in
the basement of residences or in insulated, outdoor sheds throughout the subdivision. Each
system consisted of a 5-pm pre-filter and two GAC tanks in series. Each GAC tank was 54
inches tall and contained 110 pounds of GAC. The system was designed for a flow of 7.5 gpm.
Since carbon replacement rates depend on many factors including the level of contamination,
water temperature, pH, water usage, and the presence of other constituents, periodic monitoring
was conducted to ensure that contaminants were being effectively removed. Samples collected
on a monthly basis before and after the carbon tanks were sent to a local lab for analysis. The
carbon was scheduled to be replaced upon breakthrough. However, a year after installation, no
analysis revealed that breakthrough had occurred.
64
-------
Cost Evaluation ofPOU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
2.9.2 POE and Central Treatment Cost Comparison
Lykins (1992) completed a cost comparison of POE GAC and central GAC treatment
alternatives for TCE contamination in a trailer park and a subdivision. Each residential area was
assumed to consist of 150 homes (approximately 500 residents). This translates into a water
requirement of approximately 40 gpm for each community. The trailer park was assumed to be
much more densely populated than the subdivision.
Since this analysis assumed that there was no pre-existing distribution system in either
community, more piping would be required to connect the households of the subdivision to the
central plant (15,840 feet) than would be required to connect the households of the trailer park
(3,400 feet). Piping costs were based upon the use of 8-inch PVC pipe and incorporate the
additional costs of trenching, embedment, backfill, and paving. Cost data for these items were
taken from Standardized Costs for Water Distribution Systems. Distribution system costs
account for about 70 percent of the total central system costs for the subdivision and about 50
percent for the trailer park. If ductile iron pipe were used instead of PVC pipe, the costs for the
distribution system would double.
The central treatment system and the POE devices were designed to remove at least 95
percent of influent ICE (assumed to be 100 gIL for the purposes of this study). Costs for the
central GAC treatment unit incorporated the need to maintain a 10-minute EBCT to ensure
adequate TCE removal, a carbon service life of 165 days, 30-percent excess capacity (to provide
an additional margin of safety), and 10-percent financing for 20 years. The POE units consisted
of 2 GAC tanks in series, each filled with 2 cubic feet of F-400 carbon. These units were
designed to provide 4.1 minutes of EBCT with a loading rate of 4 gpm per square foot. Each
POE unit was priced at $2,000 and assumed to be financed at 10 percent for 10 years. Annual
carbon replacement (2 cubic feet per year) was assumed to cost $420 in addition to a $15 per
month maintenance charge. A PTA unit could be installed before the GAC tanks in the POE
system. The aerator would cost approximately $3,000 and would require a continuous electrical
supply. However, the aeration unit would also extend the lifetime of the GAC by as much as 80
percent by removing a large part of the TCE prior to GAC adsorption. Thus, because the carbon
tanks would need to be replaced less frequently, the addition of the aeration unit would probably
reduce the total lifetime cost of the POE system.
Another alternative to central treatment was also studied for the two communities. This
alternative incorporates 4 GAC units, each of which could produce 10 gpm. This may save on
the amount of piping needed given certain demographics. Twenty-five percent less piping was
assumed necessary in the analysis of this alternative. Table 2.9.2.1 presents the costs of the
various treatment alternatives.
65
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options
EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Table 2.9.2.1. Costs of GA C Compliance Options for Communities of D Ifering Density I (1990$)
Residential Area
Central Treatment Cost
POE Treatment Cost 2
I Unit (40 gpm)
4 Units (10 gpm each)
Trailer Park
$357/household/year
53.7011,000 gallons
$636/household/year
56.60/1,000 gallons
$690/household/year
57.16/1,000 gallons
Subdivision
$61 9/household/year
$6 .42/1,000 gallons
$837/household/year
$8. 8/1,00O gallons
1. Central treatment costs include the cost of constructing a distribution system using PVC pipe.
2. Outfitting the entire community requires 150 POE units.
Central treatment would be the most cost-effective alternative for both communities if the
distribution system was constructed from PVC pipe. Table 2.9.2.2 presents the cost estimates
developed for the various treatment alternatives assuming the use of ductile iron pipe instead of
PVC pipe for the distribution system.
While it would still be less expensive to install a single central treatment system rather
than multiple POE units for the trailer park, the POE alternative would be significantly less
expensive for the more dispersed subdivision.
Table 2.9.2.2: Costs of GA C Compliance Options for Communities ofDjffering Density II (1990$)
Residential Area
Central Treatment Cost
POE Treatment Cost 2
I Unit(40gpm)
4Units( logpmeach)
Trailer Park
$536/household/year
$5.55/I ,000 gallons
$770/household/year
$7.99/I ,000 gallons
$690/household/year
57.16/1,000 gallons
Subdivision
$929/household/year
$9.63/I ,000 gallons
$1,069/household/year
$11 .09/1,000 gallons
1. Central treatment costs include the cost of constructing a distribution system using ductile iron pipe.
2. Outfitting the entire community requires 150 POE units.
2.9.3 Elkhart, Indiana
Elkhart is located in north central Indiana at the confluence of the Saint Joseph and
Elkhart Rivers. The population of the Elkhart metropolitan area is approximately 65,000. A
large number of industries in the Elkhart area use or have used TCE or other organic solvents in
their processes.
66
-------
Cost Evaluation ofPOU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quore
The surface geology of Elkhart consists of a typical glacial deposit created from various
types of sand and gravel that forms an extensive outwash aquifer permeating up to 175 feet. An
intermediate, non-permeable clay bed confines a deeper aquifer.
Through routine monitoring, ground water in 9 of the 17 wells at the municipal treatment
facility were found to be contaminated with approximately 95 j g/L TCE. The site was added to
the Superfund NPL in December 1982. EPA and the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) decided to install PTA units at the municipal water utility to meet the
drinking water standard. In the fall of 1987, a nationally known water treatment company
constructed 3 concurren; flow, 17-meter air-stripping towers under the supervision of the US
Army Corps of Engineers. The towers were 3 meters in diameter and each contained 9 cubic
meters of polypropylene packing media. These units were designed to treat between S million
and 6 million gallons of water per day. The air towers cost $2.5 million (in 1987 dollars) to
construct. The annual O&M cost for the towers was estimated to be between $81,000 and
$106,000.
In the fall of 1984, it was found that private wells in the East Jackson area of Elkhart were
contaminated by several VOCs including carbon tetrachloride, Irichloroethane (TCA),
dichloroethylene (DCE), perchloroethylene (PCE), and TCE. The levels of contamination were
as high as 19,380 gfL of TCE. Drinking water from these wells constituted an immediate and
significant health threat to the residents of the affected households. In addition, according to the
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR), inhalation and absorption of water contaminated with TCE above 1,500 j.sg/L is also a
health danger.
In 1985, EPA initiated a city-wide sampling program that identified more than 80 wells in
East Jackson that were contaminated by TCE at levels in excess of 200 gfL. Fifteen of these
wells had TCE concentrations in excess of 1,500 gfL. Carbon tetrachloride contamination was
also found in this area of the city. More than 800 residents were temporarily placed on bottled
water delivery, while 14,500 feet of water main were installed to connect the affected areas (301
homes and 7 businesses) to city water. In addition, 11 homes with minor contamination
problems were given POU devices since they were not adjacent to a water main.
In June 1986, severe contamination by TCE (800 /hgfL) and carbon tetrachloride (488
/1g/L) was detected in a well in the County 1 area of Elkhart. EPA again instituted a sampling
program, this time covering 88 wells. Significant levels of TCE (5,000 j. gfL) and carbon
tetrachloride (7,500 g/L) contamination were detected in this effort (Bianchin 1987). EPA
immediately provided bottled water to all affected residents and advised those with the most
contaminated wells not to use their water for any reason. Due to the time required to extend the
citys water mains, EPA decided to install POE GAC and POU GAC units at private residences.
Fifty-four POE GAC and 22 POU GAC units were installed. IDEM agreed to sample the
affected homes periodically to ensure the continued efficiency of the treatment units.
67
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
The POE GAC units were 13 inches in diameter and permitted the use of up to 3.8 cubic
feet of carbon (50 inches of carbon depth). Each POE unit contained 110 pounds of 20 x 50
mesh size GAC. Carbon replacement costs were approximately $510 per tank (in 1989 dollars),
while the sediment pre-filters cost $40 each to replace.
Two residences in East Jackson were equipped with treatment systems consisting of a
PTA element connected to two GAC tanks in series. These units were located in the basement
and were vented outside. The air strippers had a 40:1 air-to-water ratio and operated at a rate of 5
gpin. The air strippers were packed with 1-inch diameter polypropylene cylinders. Although no
microbiological problems have been encountered, a UV light may be installed in the POE system
for post-GAC disinfection. The installed cost of the entire unit (one air stripper and two GAC
tanks) was about $4,000 (in 1989 dollars). The installer recommended flushing the system any
time that water had to stand unused for more than a day. Special monitoring was undertaken to
test the effectiveness of these POE systems. The results of this monitoring showed that the units
effectively reduced the levels of carbon tretrachioride and TCE in the water.
The authors evaluated the performance of the POE GAC units in Elkhart. GAC isotherm
calculations, sometimes used to estimate breakthrough for GAC media, proved unreliable in
accurately predicting breakthrough in this instance. The time to breakthrough was significantly
over- and under-estimated. The number of gallons successfully treated before breakthrough has
ranged from 25,000 to over 300,000 gallons. Competitive effects were evident in a dual GAC
unit in Elkhart that was monitored for a special EPA study. In this case, isotherm data predicted
breakthrough for chloroform at approximately 225,000 gallons, but chloroform was estimated to
have actually broken through after about 130,000 gallons were treated by the unit. Over the
course of the study, methylene chloride concentrations of 115 agfL were consistently lowered
below detection levels. Table 2.9.3.1 summarizes data from homes in Elkhart that experienced
breakthrough and provides an illustration of GAC capabilities.
68
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Table 2.9.3.i. Performance Data for POE GAC Devices in El/chart, IN
Site
Average influent concentrations
Gallons
treated
Months
Possible Cause for CCL 4
Breakthrough
TCE
C d 4
CHCI 3
1
170
291
15
30,500
25
Competitive effects;
bacterial colonization
2
60
2,864
ND
120,000
22
High influent levels
3
418
2,188
ND
150,000
24
Hig i mfluent levels
4
331
135
10
135,000
16
Competitive effects;
TCE concentration
5
1,686
348
50
140,000
18
TCE concentration
2.9.4 Rockaway Township, New Jersey
This case is summarized from Bellen (1986). Rockaway Township is located 18 miles
northwest of Newark, in Morris County, New Jersey. The township has a population of about
20,000 people and covers approximately 45 square miles. In 1980, two ether compounds, di-
isopropyl ether and tert-butyl ether, were found in the townships water at concentrations of 70 to
100 g/L and 25 ro 40 ig/L, respectively.
The 320-acre Lake Telemark subdivision is located in the northern section of Rockaway
Township within the Hibernia Brook River Drainage Basin. The subdivision is primarily
residential, consisting of approximately 310 private homes and a small commercial district.
Fourteen of 50 wells tested in the subdivision tested positive for VOC contamination. 1,1 -
dichioroethane, TCA, DCE, PCE, TCE, I ,2-DCP, and trichiorofluoromethane were found in
detectable concentrations. These contaminants and their respective concentrations varied
considerably from site to site; most probably, the individual wells tapped different aquifers. It
was also concluded that there was more than one source of these contaminants in the area.
Ten wells had such high levels of contamination that the township health department
recommended the use of bottled water. A pilot demonstration of POU GAC technology was
begun in the subdivision in October, 1981. The township installed POU units and monitoring
devices in 12 homes in the subdivision which relied on private wells. Each well was
contaminated with a variety of organic compounds. Flow meters were not installed on the POU
devices used in the Lake Telemark Subdivision. On average, it was estimated that 2.3 gallons of
water were treated daily by each POU unit.
69
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
All 12 POU devices were purchased from the same manufacturer. Each consisted of a
two-cartridge treatment system. One cartridge contained GAC, while the other contained PAC
and filterable materials. The units held 765 grams of carbon and provided 62 seconds of contact
time based upon the manufacturers specified maximum flow rate. The units were installed
using the line bypass approach to POU treatment. The township received a price discount on the
units used in the pilot study and was not required to pay until the units had proven effective in
removing the contaminants. Homeowners not selected for the study were also permitted to
purchase POU units for the reduced price negotiated by the community. The manufacturer
agreed to arrange and pay for all installation and maintenance costs (including cartridge
replacement) for 1 year. In addition, 50 percent of the analytical costs incurred to demonstrate
the efficacy of the POU devices were covered by the vendor. Sampling costs and the remaining
analytical costs were covered by the Health Department of Rockaway Township. All participants
in the pilot study were required to sign documents indemnifying the health department for any
negative effects resulting from the use of the POU devices.
At the start of the EPA study in October 1982, the devices had been in operation for
approximately 1 year and had treated approximately 800 gallons of water. The POU GAC units
demonstrated VOC removal rates of greater than 99 percent.
Water sample collectors were selected and trained by the NSF, which managed the
project. Water sample collection, preservation, and analysis were conducted according to
prescribed EPA methods. Sample collectors were instructed to let water run for 1 to 2 minutes
before taking a sample to provide a post-treatment sample that was representative of water
subject to the minimal carbon contact time. Water samples were frequently delivered with a
small headspace (air bubble) in the sampling container. Headspace of less than 0.5 ml was not
found to significantly alter the results of VOC analyses.
From October 1982 through October 1983, only 1 of2l post-device samples contained
detectable levels of VOCs (4 ugfL TCE and 2 ig/L PCE). Eight sites were sampled during the
24 months of operation with no detectable VOCs in effluent samples (<1 /2gfL). Total organic
carbon (TOC) concentrations were low in Rockaway Township. This low level of organic
loading may have improved the capacity of carbon to remove PCE and TCE, the contaminants of
concern. Communities that depend on surface water supplies must be especially alert to high
TOC levels.
SPCs and coliform analyses were perfonned on pre- and post-device water samples
collected at 10 sites in the Lake Telemark Subdivision. Mean plate counts were higher in post-
device samples than in pre-device samples. Although the difference was significant, it was not as
great as that reported in Silverdale, Pennsylvania (see section 2.9.5). As in Silverdale, flushing
the system before sampling significantly reduced the post-device SPC. No coliform organisms
were detected in any post-device samples collected in the subdivision.
70
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options
EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Total capital costs for POU GAC units in Lake Telemark included a housing, appropriate
cartridges, connective fittings, and installation. Each unit was also equipped with a shut-off flow
meter. The purchase price was negotiated by the community. Based upon the manufacturers
rated treatment capacity of 2,000 gallons and an estimated use rate of 2.3 .gallons per household
per day, the GAC cartridge life was calculated to be 2.4 years. Total estimated replacement costs
were $1.77 per device per month. No maintenance was reported on any unit during the 2-year
demonstration period. Table 2.9.4.1 outlines unit performance and costs. Cost information was
supplied by equipment manufacturers and the township. Maintenance costs were calculated
using manufacturers rated service volumes and the average volume of treated water in the
project since no maintenance was reported during the study.
The authors of the study recommend that communities selecting POU treatment conduct a
pilot study by operating a device on the community water supply at continuous flow until
breakthrough occurs. This pilot study will establish the devices capacity for the quality of water
and could be completed in less than 3 days for most devices. Raw water quality must also be
monitored during normal (post-pilot study) operation to ensure that the quality has not changed
and that the pilot study results are still valid.
Table 2.9.4.1: Performance and Cost Data for POU GAC Devices in Rockaway Township, NJ (1985$)
Number of Units
12
.
Service area type
Private wells at single
.
family homes
Mean treated water use (gpd)
2.3 (est.)
Trichiorethylene (mean mg/L)
Influent
Effluent
.
0.125
<0.001
1,1,1-Trichioroethane (mean mgIL)
Influent
Effluent
0.092
<0.001
Average Cost per POU Unit 2
Total Cost per Household per Month 3
$255
$4.23
1. Samples containmg <0.001 mg/i. were assigned a value of 0.0009 mg /L for calculation of the mean.
2. Average of five manufacturers; includes eqwpment plus installation costs.
3. Capital, amortized at 10 percent for 20 years plus maintenance.
2.9.5 Silverdale, Pennsylvania
This case is summarized from Bellen (1986) and Lykins (1992). The Village of
Silverdale is located 30 miles north of Philadelphia and lies within the Pleasant Springs Creek
Drainage Basin in central Bucks County, Pennsylvania.. Silverdale has a population of about
71
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
550. Approximately 200 residences and 15 commercial establishments are located within the
community. Individual septic tanks were used for wastewater treatment within the community
until 1981.
The principal VOCs contaminating Silverdales water supply were TCE and PCE.
Concentrations of up to 65 g/L of TCE and 12 tg/L of PCE were found in October 1980.
Chloroform and carbon tetrachioride were also consistently found in local water samples, but
generally at concentrations of less than 10 igfL.
Line bypass POU GAC units from five manufacturers (thus five different designs) were
tested in Silverdale. All the devices demonstrated greater than 95 percent reduction of
halogenated organics in laboratory and field studies directed by the Gulf South Research Institute
between 1979 and 1981. The device manufacturers were required to certify that their products
met NSF Standard 53, Section 3 for structural integrity, corrosion resistance, nontoxicity, etc.
The units held between 300 and 1,708 grams of carbon and provided estimated contact times of 6
to 78 seconds based on the manufacturers specified maximum flow rate. Two of the five
designs used silver-impregnated activated carbon.
Forty-nine POU GAC units were installed and monitored for 14 months of operation for
control of VOCs. All of these devices used the line bypass approach to treatment POU devices
were purchased from the manufacturers and installed by licensed plumbing contractors.
The average capital cost of a POU GAC treatment unit in Silverdale was $289 (in 1985
dollars). The systems included a housing, all appropriate cartridges a flow meter, a tap, and all
connective fittings. The cost of the POU devices reflected the discount provided by the
manufacturers for purchases of 10 or more units.
Installation and maintenance was subcontracted to the local water company at a rate of
$20 an hour. Installation generally required between 0.75 and 1.5 hours of labor per device.
Maintenance costs averaged $1.43 per site per month. The estimated effective life of the GAC
cartridges ranged from two to five years. These estimates were developed using each
manufacturers rated capacity and the observed treated water usage rate of 1 gpd. Particulate pre-
filters were assumed to be replaced annually. Thus, an average replacement cost of $1.72 per
device per month was developed. Model-specific replacement costs ranged from $0.48 to $3.11
per device per month. Since replacement parts needed for unit repair were provided by the
manufacturers free of charge, this figure represents only labor costs. Sampling and
microbiological analysis in Silverdale cost $20 per sample. VOC analyses cost $50 per sample.
All cost information is based on actual cost data gathered during the project. Table 2.9.5.1
outlines unit performance and costs.
72
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Table 2.9.5.1: Performance and Cost Data for POU GAC Devices in Silverdale, PA (1985$)
Number of Units
49
.
Service area type
Central system with
.
single family homes
Mean treated water use (gpd)
1.0
Trichiorethylene (mean mg/L)
Influent
Effluent
0.080
<0.001
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane (mean mg/L)
Influent
Effluent
0.001 -
<0.001
Average Cost per POU Unit 2
Total Cost per Household per Month 3
$289
$5.98
1. Samples containing <0.001 mg/L were assigned a value of 0.0009 mg/L for calculation of the mean.
2. Average of five manufacturers; includes equipment plus installation costs.
3. Capital, amortized at 10 percent for 20 years plus maintenance.
Water sample collectors were selected and trained by the NSF, which managed the
project. Collection, preservation, and analysis of water samples were conducted according to
prescribed EPA methods.
Properly sized and installed GAC POU units reduced PCE and TCE concentrations to
less than 1.0 sgfL throughout the 14-month study period (in 95.0 percent and 97.7 percent of
samples, respectively). Other VOCs were detected in only 61 of 715 post-device analyses (8.5
percent) during the study. In no case was a VOC detected in a concentration greater than 24.3
j.ig/L. Table 2.9.5.2 summarizes the contaminants and influent concentrations successfully
treated over the study period. While the total quantity of compound adsorbed may differ from
unit to unit, the relative capacities, or the order of breakthrough of the compounds, remain the
same.
While the number of microorganisms measured by the SPC method was substantially
higher in post-device than in pre-device water, no evidence of coliform bacteria colonization was
found in any of the POU devices. Samples taken after 2 minutes of flushing the system were
found to have SPCs comparable to those of the distribution system itself. Silver impregnation of
GAC did not appear to affect microbial density under the conditions of this study. Measures of
microbial density such as the SPC had a negative correlation with the weight of carbon used in a
device (i.e., units that contained more GAC produced water with lower bacterial concentrations).
The study concluded that variation in sampling technique will significantly alter results of
microbiological testing of water passing through POU devices. An experiment specifically
designed to study the correlation between SPC densities and carbon quantity would be required
73
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
to confirm this finding. Once a samplingmethod has been chosen, it should be consistently
followed to ensure comparable results.
Table 2.9.5.2: Source Water Quality of Surveyed Houses in Silverdale, PA
Contaminant
Mean Pre-device
Concentration
(lig/L)
Contaminant
Mean Pre-device
Concentration
( gfL)
Trichloroethylene
80.4
1,2dichloroethane
<1.0
Tetrachloroethylene
20.6
Bromodichloromethane
1.5
Carbon Tetrachloride
8.0
Dibromochloromethane
1.4
Chloroform
6.7
Bromoform
<1,0
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane 1.1
The study also concluded that all water quality districts that choose to install POU
technology should conduct periodic monitoring. For most cases involving VOC contamination,
premature replacement of carbon cartridges is more cost effective than frequent sampling and
analysis due to the high lab fees charged for VOC analyses. Relatively consistent raw water
quality is necessary to ensure the efficacy of periodically replacing POU cartridges as a treatment
method. As with central treatment, routine maintenance must be provided after installation
Homeowners must also be made aware of how and when to request maintenance and monitoring.
The study found that many homeowners did not report operational problems immediately.
Leaking caused $250 and $300 worth of damage in two homes. Although these costs
were covered by the manufacturers liability insurance, reimbursement took several months.
The authors of the study recommend that communities selecting POU treatment conduct a
pilot study by operating a device on the community water supply at continuous flow until
breakthrough occurs. This pilot study will establish the devices capacity for the quality of water
and could be completed in less than 3 days for most devices. Raw water quality must also be
monitored during normal (post-pilot study) operation to ensure that the quality has not changed
and that the pilot study results are still valid.
19.6 Putnam Couna y, New York
Lake Cannel is located approximately 50 miles north of New York City in Putnam
County. During the 1930s, the hills surrounding the small lake were extensively developed with
seasonal residences. Most of these residences were recently converted to year-round housing.
Each residence has its own well and septic system. Petroleum leaks and spills and the chemicals
residents flushed into septic systems contaminated local ground water. TCA, PCE, TCE,
74
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
benzene, toluene, xylene, and carbon tetrachioride were all detected at relatively high
concentrations. Elevated nitrate and high coliform levels were also discovered at some wells.
Approximately 40 percent of bacteriological samples exceeded the standard of I coliform
organism/l00 mL. However, coliform levels varied considerably from well to well and in the
same well over time. TabLe 2.9.6.1 provides a summary of local contamination problems.
Residents hired an engineering consultant to conduct a feasibility study for central
treatment. The study found that installing a public water system would cost more than $1,200
per household per year. The majority of this projected cost was due to the need for extensive
excavation in rocky terrain to install the distribution system. The U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development provided $165,000 to design, purchase and install POE treatment
systems under an imminent threat grant. Sixty-seven of the 110 eligible households opted to
install POE units.
Table 2.9.6.1: Source Water Quality of Surveyed Households in Putnam County, NY
- Mean Concentration
( /L)
.
Contaminant
Mean Concentration
(ug )
67.7 ± 176.3
Barium
0.115 ± 0.122
2.90 ± 1.15
Boron
0.212 ± 0.425
Tetrachtoride 4.50 ± 1.9*
Calcium
30.27 ± 16.04
5.03 ± 4.81
Chromium
0.001 ± 0.002
38.3 162.1
Copper
0.033 ± 0.039
100.2 ± 215.3
Iron (Fe)
0.100 ± 0.097
8.5 ± 88.0
Lead (Pb)
0.008 ± 0.015
6.91 15.10
Magnesium (Mg)
10.47 ± 5.45
5.48 ± 3.86
Molybdenum (Mo)
0.081 ± 0.126
1.25 ± 0.50
Nickel (Ni)
0.005 1 0.007
Chloride 2±0
Phosphorous (P)
0.00210.005
108.4 ± 178.1
Potassium (K)
2.18 12.42
Coliform <1 to 245
organisms/IOO mL)
Silicon (Si)
.
4.69 ± 2.75
23 ± 17.0
Sodium (Na)
85.28 ± 73.49
0.095±0.155
Zinc (Zn)
0.033 ± 0.038
0.015 ± 0.030
Nitrate
5.65 ± 3.47
75
-------
Cost Evaluation ofPOU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Each POE unit included a water meter, two 5-pm cartridge pre-filters in parallel, two
(JAC filters in series, pressure gauges before and after the treatment system, and a UV light
disinfection system. The GAC filters were composed of a 10-inch diameter fiberglass tank
containing 40 pounds of virgin activated carbon. Bed depth was 36 inches, and each cylinder
provided for an EBCT of about 2.5 minutes at a flow rate of 5 gpm. The UV Light element was
equipped with a light sensor and visual alarm to inform the homeowner of proper operation. A
valve system was designed to allow water use even when the GAC cylinders were being changed.
Costs for this system are detailed in Table 2.9.6.2. Based upon a benzene concentration of 244
zg1L (the mean observed benzene concentration plus one standard deviation), the theoretical
useful life of this POE unit was 36 months. Although the theoretical Lifetime of each individual
tank was 18 months, the lead cylinder was replaced annually. Thus, each year the lag tank was
moved to the lead position and a newly charged tank was placed in the lag position.
Table 2.9.6.2: Cost Data for POE GAC Devices in Putnam County, NY (1 987$)
Item
Cost
Water Meter
$150.60
Gate Valves (8)
Check Valve
Sampling Taps (3) -
Pressure Gauges (2)
Caxtiidge Pre-filtets (2)
$67.84
GAC tanks (2)
$140.60
GAC (80 pounds)
$72.00
UV Disinfection Unit
$392.00
Installation
$494.00
Total System Cost
$1,317.04
Initially, 08 CM of the POE units was to be carried out by personnel of the nearby, Town of
Kent. However, the town turned responsibiLity for O&M over to the homeowners. They formed
a not-for-profit corporation, the Lake Carmel Water Quality Improvement District (LCWQID),
which consists of the homeowners who installed POE treatment systems in their homes.
The maintenance requirements of these units consists of changing one of the 0 /SC tanks
every year, replacing the UV bulb every 9 months, and changing the pre-filters when necessary.
The GAC tank is recharged at a town-provided workshed where the used GAC is replaced with
18 pounds of virgin GAC. The spent carbon is disposed of at a nearby landfill. Maintenance
76
-------
Cost Evaluation ofPOU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
staff make house calls to repair leaks and to clean the quartz tube housing the UV bulb. They are
paid on a per-item basis.
The LCWQID attempted to sample 10 percent of the POE units each year. From 1984
through 1986, 21 paired samples were collected and analyzed for coliform organisms. Three
untreated samples had high coliform counts. However, only one treated sample had a detectable
level of coliforms (2/100 mL). The LCWQID did not have enough money to adequately monitor
organic chemicals. Only 10 units were sampled and analyzed for benzene, toluene, and xylene in
1984. None of these chemicals were found either in untreated or treated water at concentrations
exceeding the guideline levels of 5 /2g/L for benzene and 50 sgfL for toluene and xylene.
Limited testing continued from 1985 to 1987. The test results were not comprehensive enough to
make a definitive statement on the POE systems efficacy in the removal of organic
contaminants, but they did provide evidence that the units were performing satisfactorily (at no
point was any contaminant detected at levels greater than 5 1 ugfL).
In the first 4 years of operation, the annual costs of O&M have been $250 per household.
By 1987, the annual cost had been raised by LCWQID to $320 per household. This fee was paid
quarterly.
2.9.7 POU and Central Treatment Cost Comparison I
Economies of scale frequently result in central treatment systems being less costly to
operate than a network of POU or POE devices, especially for larger communities. For example,
a study by Goodrich (1990) compared the cost of upgrading an established central treatment
system with the cost of installing POE devices in every household of communities of different
sizes. For this study, water use was assumed to be 275 gpd per house. Both the central system
and the POE units were designed to remove of at least 95 percent of dibromochloropropane
(DBCP), ICE, and I ,2-DCP. In each case, when a community is larger than 25 households, and
has a pre-existing distribution system, central treatment becomes economically preferable to POE
treatment The absence of a pre-existing distribution system will result in the POE treatment
strategy becoming less expensive to implement than a central treatment strategy for a larger
number of households.
77
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Table 2.9. 7.1. Costs of GA C Compliance Options for Communities of D jffering Size 1 (1990$)
Number of
Households
.
Contaminant
Influent ConceNtration
(j glL)
Central System Cost
per 1,000 Gallons 2
Average POE Cost
per 1,000 Gallons
10
25
50
DBCP
DBCP
DBCP
50
50
50
$13.85
$6.69
$3.98
$4.75
10
25
50
ICE
ICE
TCE
100
100
100
$13.95
$6.79
$4.08
$6.75
10
25
50
1,2-DC?
1,2-DC?
1,2-DC?
100
100
100
$14.94
$7.50
$4.65
$8.00
I. Systems must remove more than 95 percent of contaminant.
2. Distribution system (i.e., pipes, valves, etc.) already in place.
2.9.8 POE and Central Treatment Cost Comparison II
Goodrich completed a similar study to that reported in section 2.9.7 in 1992. It was
assumed that a small community had a central treatment plant and distribution system. GAC
treatment was to be used to address organic chemical contamination. Water use was assumed to
be 80 gpd per person; a household was considered to be 3.3 persons. Three contaminants were
considered: DBCP, 1,2-DCP, and ICE. Both the POE system and the central plant were
designed to remove 95 to 99 percent of these contaminants.
The POE system consisted of two GAC contactors in series; each had approximately 2
cubic feet of GAC, providing 4.1 minutes EBCT with a design loading of 4 gpm per square foot.
The carbon in the POE system was replaced every one to two years. POE costs included a capital
cost of $2,000, paid over 10 years at 8 percent interest. Costs for routine maintenance, sampling,
and analysis were estimated at $350 per year. Carbon replacement costs varied by contaminant.
Costs associated with GAC central treatment varied with system capacity and type of
contaminant. Replacement of spent carbon with virgin carbon was assumed. Capital costs were
amortized at 8 percent for 20 years. Table 2.9.8.1 compares the costs of POE and central
treatment employing GAC technology as a function of the number of households involved.
78
-------
Cost Evaluation ofPOU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Table 2.9.8.1. Costs of GAC Compliance Options for Communities of D ering Size II (1992$)
Number of
Households
Annual Cost for Each Household
DBCP
TCE
1,2DCP
Central
POE
Central
POE
Central
POE
10
$1,325
$775
$1,332
$815
$1,356
$900
15
$954
$985
$960
$790
20
$760
$766
25
$639
$670
$646
$385
50
$380
$410
2.10 Dibroinochloropropane Treatment: Fresno, California
The provision of safe drinking water to areas of low population density is an increasing
problem in Californias San Joaquin Valley. A survey indicated that 99 of 231 sampled wells
(42.9 percent) tested positive for organic contamination in Fresno County, while 41.2 percent of
sampled wells tested positive for contamination by organic compounds in Los Angeles County.
Hundreds of homes in the area were sold POE (3AC units to heat for DBCP because of its
previous widespread application to control nematode infestations of grapes and other crops.
Typically, these units were equipped with flow totalizers, pressure gauges at the inlets and
outlets, a flow-restriction mechanism to maintain a minimum contact time of 1.5 minutes, and
facilities to backwash the carbon to control head loss. Local firms sell and lease POE GAC
units. Vendors typically service the units themselves.
Ten POE GAC units were selected for study in an intensively farmed area southeast of
Fresno. Both pre- and post-device water was sampled for DBCP eveiy 4 to 8 weeks for 2 years.
GAC treatment, when properly applied, proved to be extremely effective in removing DBCP
from the household water supply. However, the effectiveness of individual units depended upon
the quality of the GAC media. Monitoring results showed that the performance of these units
could change markedly over short periods of time. Thus, safe use of these units requires
conscientious, periodic monitoring. This level of monitoring may be difficult to achieve, since
owners generally lack the expertise to monitor the units they buy, and vendors have no
contractual authority or responsibility to monitor the POE units they sell.
Several models for achieving the desired degree of supervision and control over
individual or small private water systems were presented. These included using existing districts
79
-------
Cost Evaluation ofPOU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
or similar entities that have an adequate physical system and sufficient personnel, or creating a
special water quality district through legislative action. Counties, towns, public or private water
service districts, irrigation districts, community service districts, and sanitation districts would all
be suitable jurisdictional bodies for administering POU and POE unit programs.
Test results for bacteriological growth in the carbon beds of the 10 units were scattered
and inconclusive. However, the data seem to suggest that the number of organisms generally
increased in the product waters relative to the feed waters. Because of the potential for
colonization on GAC by some primary and opportunistic pathogens, the study concludes that
POE GAC devices are best used on waters that meet the bacteriological standards for drinking
water.
Representative costs for GAC treatment using POE devices were found to range from $3
to $4 per 1,000 gallons treated (in January 1990 dollars). The authors emphasize that the costs
associated with all aspects of POU and POE unit operation must be considered to permit an
accurate comparison with central treatment options.
2.11 Microbiological Treatment
Although the SDWA explicitly forbids the use of POU treatment devices to meet the
MCL for a microbiological contaminant, several case studies identified during the literature
search describe the strategies selected by small communities to address microbial contamination.
Even though POU units may not be used to address microbiological contamination, valuable
insight into potentially useful management techniques for the use of both POU and POE
treatment devices may be gleaned from the folkwing case studies.
2.11.1 Ephraim, Wisconsin
This case is summarized from reports provided by Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and
Associates, Inc. Ephraim, Wisconsin is a village of 260 permanent residents and an additional
1,000 to 2,000 seasonal residents. The village has endured bacterial contamination of its ground
water for many years. In 1987, the village improved the quality of the ground water in the area
by installing a wastewater treatment facility that serves about 40 percent of the population,
though the majority still rely upon household septic systems.
Improved wastewater treatment did not eliminate the bacterial contamination of village
wells. Testing showed the presence of coliform in 48.5 percent of non-community public wells
and 39.5 percent of private wells tested in the village. In 1993, due to the high incidence of
coliform in the village wells, the WDNR issued a boil water advisory for the entire village and
suggested that Ephraim build a municipal water system. The village contracted with a consulting
finn to evaluate the possible alternatives for addressing the water quality problem. The firm of
80
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates (BRAA) studied the alternatives and placed the cost
of a municipal system at approximately $13 million. In contrast, they determined the cost of
installing and maintaining POE treatment at all of the 425 residences in the village to be
approximately $3.3 million.
The cost of constructing the municipal system was driven by several thctors. The shallow
bedrock in the area made it vely expensive to put in pipelines, while underlying rock formations
made construction difficult and risky. Because of the unique characteristics of the trenches used
for the wastewater treatment facility, WDNR determined that the same trenches could not be
used for the municipal water system. The scattering of residences on the outskirts of the village
necessitated long underground pipelines. In addition, the water contamination problems in
Ephraim are site-specific; the water quality at a well in the south end of the village has little to do
with water quality at a well in the north end.
In August 1994, the WDNR, the Village of Ephraim, and the WQA formed an informal
partnership to conduct a POE pilot study. Eight wells were selected for the pilot study, and two
types of POE systems were installed. Chlorine disinfection systems were installed in two wells
and UV was installed in five wells. One well was used as a control site. The chlorine systems
also included a GAC post-filter to remove chlorine odor and taste and a I - m pre-filter to
remove Cryplosporidium. The UV systems included a 5-sum pre-filter for the removal of iron
before water went througl the UV disinfection compartment and a 1-tim filter after the UV
element to remove Cryptosporidium and Giardia.
During the 3-month study, coliform bacteria were found in untreated water at three of the
five POE UV sites. For all three of the POE UV sites where pre-device samples tested positive
for coliform, UV treatment rendered the water 100 percent coliforni-negative. A total of 50
valid pairs of samples were taken from the UV sites over the 3 month study period. A valid
pair indicates that the untreated water tested coliform-positive and the treated water tested
coliform-negative. The combination of technologies used in these POE systems also effectively
reduced the level of TDS in treated water.
Positive pre-device samples for coliform were found at only one of the two POE chlorine
sites during the testing period. A total of 17 valid pairs of samples were taken during the
period. The results showed that the chlorine system removed 100 percent of the coliform
bacteria.
Both POE systems were found to be 100-percent effective in eliminating coliform from
the village water. The study emphasizes that the UV systems, while as effective as the chlorine
systems, were much simpler to operate and monitor. Researchers also found that the chlorine
systems were difficult to apply when household water use was low and that consistent chlorine
levels were tedious to maintain.
81
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
The responsibility for monitoring during this study was shared by a contract service hired
by the village, village officials, and individual homeowners. After the study ended, monitoring
became the responsibility of the homeowner. Homeowners could fulfill this responsibility
themselves, dr hire a contract service to monitor their POE system on a regular basis.
BRAA estimated installation andyearly O&M costs for installing POE units at all
Ephraim wells. The POE strategy combined the use of several POE technologies. BRAA
assumed for the purposes of their cost analysis that chlorine disinfection systems would be
installed at all public non-community wells, while UV disinfection systems would be installed in
most private residences. It was further assumed that UV disinfection systems equipped with an
air-injected iron pre-filter would be installed in private residences that had severe iron
contamination problems. By making assumptions about the volume of water use and by
amortizing the purchase and installation costs over the service life of the treatment units, the cost
per gallon treated could be estimated. The costs calculated by BRAA are presented in Table
2.11.1.1.
82
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Table 2.11.1.1: Cost Estimate for POE Treatment in Ephraim, WI (1994$)
Item .
Unit
Cost
Number
Total Cost
PUBLIC WELLS
Chlorine disinfection system with GAC post-filter
O&M
Chlorine addition
Carbon filter replacement (eveiy 3 years) .
Inspection and maintenance of chlorine injector and
feed pump
Valve and pressure gauge replacement (every 10 years)
Total O&M cost
each
per year
per year
per year
per year
S 12,000
590
$45
$40
56
32
32
32
32
32
$384,000
52,880
$1,440
$1,280
$192
$5, 792
PRIVATE WELLS
Ultraviolet light disinfection system with 1- im post-filter
O&M
Replacement of UV Lamp (twice per year)
Replacement of cartridge filter (evesy 3 months)
Valve and pressure gauge replacement (every 10 years)
Electrical costs
Total O&M cost
each
per year
per year
per year
per year
$1,500
$160
$20
$6
$60
295
295
295
295
295
$442,500
547,200
$5,900
$1,770
$17,700
$72,570
UV disinfection system with air-injected iron pre-filter
O&M
Replacement of UV lamp (twice per year)
Maintenance of air-injection filter (once per month)
Valve and pressure gauge replacement (every 10 years)
Electrical costs
Total O&Mcost
each
per year
per year
per year
per year
$3,100
$160
$240
56
$75
98
98
98
98
98
$303,800
515,680
$23,520
$588
$7,350
$47,138
Bacteria Sampling
PUBLIC (twice per month)
PRIVATE (once per year)
per year
per year
$600
$25
32
393
$19,200
$9,825
Pilot Study for DNR Approval
L.S.
$35,000
I
$35,000
Ongoing Testing and Administration of System
per year
$20,000
I
$20,000
Sub: otal
Initial Installation
Annual O&M
$1,165,300
$174,525
Total Cost of POE Option
S1,339,825
83
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options
EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
2.11.2 Gibson Canyon, Cal 4fornia
Gibson Canyon, California is a development of 140 homeowners northwest of San
Francisco. Gibson Canyon has long used POE devices to solve bacteria and turbidity problems
in the water supplied to them by the Solano Irrigation District (SID). Residential water use was
considered incidental to the SIDs primary function of providing water for agriculture. At the
communitys request, the SID completed a feasibility study to explore the option of
implementing POE treatment instead of central treatment.
The feasibility study compared the implementation costs of two different POE strategies
to the cost of implementing central treatment. The two POE options differed in their
assumptions regarding the extent of the required pilot study and the frequency of system-wide
sampling. Alternative One, the higher cost option, employed a more extensive pilot study and
continuous turbidity monitoring for each home. Alternative Two reduced the scope of the pilot
study and assumes that monitoring requirements would be reduced to representative monitoring.
This would be accomplished through the use of continuous turbidity meters and recorders
equipped with alarms located at five representative sites within the water systems service area.
The sites would be rotated over time so that all POE devices would be monitored. It was
assumed that bacteriological testing would also be reduced to representative monitoring. The
costs used below for central treatment were based on a two-pipe central system that would
provide raw water for irrigation and potable water for household use. A comparison of the costs
associated with Alternative One, Alternative Two, and central treatment is presented in Table
2.11.2.1.
Table 2.11.2.1. Cost Data for Compliance Options in Gibson Canyon, CA (1992$)
CompLiance Option
Capital Cost
Annual
Repayment of
Capital
Annual
Operating
Cost
Total
Annual
Cost
Annuat Cost Per
Conn tion 2
POE Alternative One
$372,000
$38,000
$271,500
$309,500
$2,211
POE Alternative Two
$494,000
$50,000
$108,600
$158,600
$1,133
Central Treaόnent
$1,540,000
$157,000
$59,500
$216,500
$1,546
1. Amortization at 8 percent over 20 years.
2. Based on 140 connections.
Additional cost data were provided for Alternative Two. The author of the feasibility
study included an estimate of the cost associated with retrofitting existing POE devices and an
estimate of the cost of maintaining the POE devices. Table 2.11.2.2 outlines the estimated cost
of retrofitting existing POE devices, and Table 2.11.2.3 presents the estimated cost of
maintaining the existing POE devices.
84
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Table 2.11.2.2: Cost Data for Retrofit of Existing POE Devices (1992$)
Item
Cost
Install UV devices on 69 uni
69 POE x $800
ts without UV (of 136 total units)
$55,200
Install cartridge filters
136 POE x 2 filters x $100
Installation: 136 x $50
$27,200
$6,800
Install ceramic media filters
I36existingPOEx$1,350
$183,600
Modif to allow Solano Irri
136 existing POE ,c $500
gation District access
$68,000
Subtotal
$340,800
Contingencies (25%)
$85,200
Total
$426,000
Table 2.11.2.3: Cost
Data for Maintenance of Existing POE Devices (1992$)
Item
Cost
Replacement of filter cartridges
136 POE devices x 3 changes per year 408 visits at 30 minutes
30 mm. each 12 per day; 408 χ 12 =34 days
34 165 x $30,000 per year
$3,000
Cartridges;
136 POE units x 2 fittersl
unit x 3 times/year = 816 cartridges x $2slcartridge
$20,400
Monitoring
Turbidity at 5 continuous
Bacteria at 12 samples/mo
stations; .4 person/year x $30,000
nth x $25/sample (labor included in above)
$15,000
$3,600
Maintenance of POE device
s at !.4 person/year x $30,000
$15,000
Replacement of UV lights at
136 lights x $100 each
136 POE devices x 1/year
$13,600
Total
$70,600
85
-------
Cost Evaluation of FO C i/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
2.12 POU Treatment Devices
Several articles identified during the literature search provided generic pricing
information for POU treatment devices. Although these articles do not provide performance
data, they do provide additional points of reference that were used to verify tl e cost data
provided by other case studies and the cost curves presented in section 4.4.
2.12.1 Grunernuan (1984)
Gumerman (1984) presents cost data for unit processes capable of removing contaminants
in small water systems. Included is a discussion of POU treatment that provides information on
treatment capabilities, construction costs, and O&M costs for five POU treatment technologies:
AS, GAC, AX, CX, and RO. Cost estimates are provided for two types off OU installations:
under-sink and at the property line.
Much like the POU line bypass units described in section 1.2.1, the under-sink
installations described by Gumerman tapped into the cold water line under the kitchen sink.
These units also included a shutoff-valve between the cold water line and the treatment device.
Treated water would be dispensed from a dedicated faucet mounted on the sink. For installations
at the property line, the treatment unit was assumed to be housed in a meter box at the edge of the
residents property. The meter box was designed to permit easy access for unit maintenance. A
copper tube connected the unit to the households main water supply. A shutoff-valve was
provided upstream of the treatment unit, and a sampling tap was provided downstream; both
were designed to be accessible at the meter box. A half-inch PVC pipeline connecting the
treatment unit to a dedicated kitchen tap was also specified.
Under-sink installations cost less than property line installations and provide greater
protection from adverse weather conditions, particularly freezing. However, under-sink
installations do not permit the water system to access the treatmen i unit for sample collection and
replacement of exhausted treatment devices without first coordinating its activities with
homeowners.
Location of a treatment device at the property line ensures access for the water utility or
its designee for servicing and sample collection. However, in locations where winter freezing
occurs, an outdoor location would probably not be practical. In addition, POU RO units may not
be located at the property line if there is no readily available sewer connection for the discharge
of the aggressive waste brine produced by such devices.
Gumerman emphasized that the water utility is responsible for the installation and
maintenance of POU treatment devices designed to remove contaminants regulated under the
NPDWRs. According to Gumerman, these responsibilities include: purchasing treatment units,
proper installation of treatrnei t units, routine monitoring to ensure compliance with MCLs,
86
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
maintenance of the units, and periodic replacement of all filters and cartridges. Any or all of
these responsibilities may be subcontracted to a firm that specializes in such work. However, the
public water utility remains ultimately responsible (and liable) for the safety of all water supplied
to the community (see section 1.1).
2.12.1) Activated Alumina
AA systems were reported to be effective in the removal of arsenate (99 percent removal
at pH 5-6 and an influent concentration of 5.0 mg As(V)IL), fluoride (99 percent removal at pH
5-6 and an influent concentration of more than 140 mg F/L), and selenium (IV) (70 percent at an
influent concentration of 0.033 mg Sc (IV)IL).
Construction costs for AA filtration units are presented in Table 2.12.1 .1.1 for under-sink
installations and for installations at the property line. For both locations, the AA canister was
described as a 14.2-liter fiberglass cylinder. The cost of PVC piping can vary for installation at
the property line. For homes close to the curb with a grass lawn, the cost estimate is reasonable.
For homes with extensive landscaping, the estimate may be low. Particular attention should be
given to this cost for each installation.
Table 2.12.1.1: Capital Cost Data/or POUAA Devices (1983$)
Cost Category
Cost for Under Sink
.
Installation
Cost for Installation at the
.
Property LLne
AA filter canister
$200
$200
Water meter
$40
$40
Plastic meter box and 10-inch PVC pipe collar
$30
PVC piping to house
$20
Faucet, copper or plastic tubing, and fittings
$40
$40
Labor, installation
$40
$120
Subtotal
$320
$450
Contingency
$50
$70
Total
$370
$520
O&M costs for POU AA treatment are limited to the cost of labor and materials because
the AA units do not require electrical power. The O&M costs are divided into three categories:
sampling/testing, media regeneration, and repairs. A summary of O&M costs is shown in Table
2.12.1.1.2. A range of costs is presented for each category to illustrate the sensitivity of O&M
costs to various assumptions.
87
-------
Cost Evaluation of P0 U/POE Treatment Options
EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Table 2.12.1.1.2: Operation and Maintenance Cost Data for POUAA Devices (1983$)
Cost Category
Labor
(hr/yr)
Annual
Material Cost
Total Annual
Cost 1
Average Total
Annual Cost
Sampling/testing frequency
2/yr
4/yr
6/yr
$2
$6
$12
$20
$40
$60
$41
$106
$192
$106
Media regeneration frequency 3
2/yr
I/yr
0.5/yr
$2
$1
$0.5
$100
$50
$25
$122
$61
$30
$61
Repairs
Low
Average
High
$1
$2
$3
$10
$20
$30
$21
$42
$63
$42
Total cost for mid-range condition
$209/yr
I. Materials cost for sampling/testing represents the cost for laboratory testing.
2. Total cost is based upon $11 .00/hour of labor.
3. Materials costs for regeneration assume that the alumina is regenerated locally.
2.12.1.2 Granular Activated Carbon
Gumerman reports that GAC units can remove 80 percent of inorganic mercury (influent
concentration of 0.01 mg Hg (inorganic)IL) and 60 percent of organic mercury (influent
concentration of 0.005 mg Hg (organic)/L). POU GAC units also effectively remove most
organic compounds.
Construction costs for POU GAC units are presented in Table 2.12.1.2.1 for under-sink
installations and for installations at the property line. The cost of a POU GAC unit are based on
the use of a quality plastic or stainless steel housing and a replaceable carbon cartridge. The
amount of carbon in the POU unit would range from 0.002 to 0.003 cubic meters. The
theoretical water treatment capacity for the units ranges between 1,000 and 3,000 gallons, based
on the carbon volumes given above. Actual capacity would depend on the quality of the raw
water to be treated.
O&M costs for POU GAC treatment are limited to labor and materials because the GAC
units do not require electrical power. The O&M costs are divided into three categories:
sampling/testing, carbon cartridge replacement, and repairs. A summary of O&M costs is
presented in Table 2.12.1.2.2. A range of costs is shown for each category to illustrate the
sensitivity of O&M costs to various assumptions.
88
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Table 2.12.1.2.1: Capital Cost Data for POU GAC Devices (1983$)
Cost Category
Cost for Under Sink
Installation
Cost for Installation at
the Property Line
GAC unit
$140
$140
Plastic meter box and 10-inch PVC pipe collar
$30
Water meter
$40
$40
PVC piping to house
$20
Faucet, copper or plastic tubing, and fittings
$40
$40
Labor, installation
$40
$120
Subtotal
$260
$390
Contingency
$40
$60
Total
$300
$450
Table 2.12.1.2.2: Operation and Maintenance Cost Data for POU GAC Devices (1983$)
Cost Category
Labor
(hrlyr)
Annual
Material Cost
Total Annual
Cost 2
Average Total
Annual Cost
Sampling/testing frequency
2/yr
4/yr
6/yr
2
4
6
$60
$120
$180
$82
$164
$246
$164
Carbon cartridge replacement interval 3
lyr
2yr
3yr
I
0.5
0.3
$10
$5
$3
$21
$10
$6
$10
Repairs
Low
Average
High
1
2
3
$10
$20
$30
$21
$42
$63
$42
Total cost for mid-range condition
$216
I. Materials cost for sampLingf testing represents the cost for laboratory testing.
2. Total cost is based upon $1 1.00/hour of labor.
3. This read as Frequency and 1/yr, 2/yr 3/yr in the original, but the cost and labor figures decreased as the
frequency per year increased. Since this seemed illogical, the heading was changed to Interval for this report.
89
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
2.12.1.3 Anion Exchange
AX units have demonstrated their ability to remove arsenate (90 percent removal for
influent waters with 0.5 mg As(V)IL), barium (95 percent removal for influent waters with 20 mg
BaIL), nitrate (90 percent removal for influent waters with 100 mg N0 3 /L), selenium (IV) (90
percent removal for influent waters with 0.1 mg Se(IV)/L), and selenium (VI) (97 percent
removal for influent waters with 0.33 mg Se (VI)/L). However, it is important to note that
sulfate is preferentially removed over arsenate and selenium (IV) by AX. Preference for
selenium (VI) is approximately equal to that of sulfate. Therefore, use of AX to remove
selenium (VI) may be possible even in the presence of low concentrations of sulfate.
Construction costs for POU AX units are presented in Table 2.12.1.3.1 for under-sink
installations and for installations at the property line. The cost of the unit is based on using a
fiberglass housing and a replaceable resin cartridge. The housing is 6% inches in diameter, 23
inches long, and has a resin capacity of 0.008 m 3 . The quantity of water that can be treated
depends on the contaminant being removed.
Table 2.12.1.3.1: Capital Cost Data for POUAX Devices (1983$)
- Cost for Under Sink
Category Installation
Cost for Installation at
the Property Line
$270
$270
$40
$40
0-inch PVC pipe collar
$30
$20
tubing, and fittings $40
$40
$40
$120
$390
$520
$60
$30
$450
$600
O&M costs for POU AX treatment are limited to the cost of labor and materials since the
AA units do not require electrical power for effective operation. The O&M costs are divided into
three categories: sampling/testing, AX resin regeneration, and repairs. A summary of O&M
costs for POU AX treatment is shown in Table 2.12.1.3.2. A range of costs is presented for each
category to illustrate the sensitivity of O&M costs to various assumptions.
90
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options
EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Table 2.12.1.3.2: Operation and Maintenance Cost Data for POUAX Devices (1983$)
Cost Category
Labor
(hr/yr)
Annual
Material Cost
Total Annual
Cost 2
Average Total
Annual Cost
Sampling/testing frequency
2/yr
4/yr
6/yr
2
4
6
$40
$80
$120
$62
$124
$186
$124
Resin regeneration interval 3
lyr
2 yr
3yr
I
0.5
0.3
$60
$30
$20
$71
$36
$23
$36
Repairs
Low
Average
High
Total cost for mid-range condition
I
2
3
$10
$20
$30
$21
$42
$63
$42
U
. - $202
I. Materials cost for sampling/testing represents the cost for laboratory testing.
2. Total cost is based upon $11 .00/hour of labor.
3. This read as Frequency and I/yr. 2/yr. 3/yr in the original, but the cost and labor figures decreased as the
frequency per year increased. Since this seemed illogical, the heading was changed to Interval for this report.
2.12.1.4 Cation Exchange
CX units effectively remove 98 percent of cadmium from influent waters with 0.5 mg
Cd/L and 85 percent of silver from influent waters with 0.33 mg AgIL. Barium, chromium (L II),
lead, and radium contamination may also be ameliorated by the use of CX technology.
Construction costs for POU CX systems are presented in Table 2.12.1.4.1 for under-sink
installations and for installations at the property line. Costs include a CX canister and resin, a
water meter, a special faucet, and all required tubing, fittings, and adapters. The canister is
approximately 6 inches in diameter and 23 inches in length and contains an effective resin
volume of 0.008 m 3 . The quantity of water that can be treated prior to regeneration depends on
the quality of the water being treated.
O&M costs for POU CX units are limited to labor and materials because CX devices do
not require electrical power. The O&M costs are divided into three categories: sampling/testing,
resin regeneration, and repairs. A suinmaly of O&M costs is presented in Table 2.12.1.4.2. A
range of costs is shown for each category to illustrate the sensitivity of O&M costs to various
assumptions.
91
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Table 2.12.1.4.1: Capital Cost Data for POU CX Devices (1983$)
Cost for Under Sink
Category Installation
Cost for Installation at
the Property Line
and Resin $180
$180
$40
$40
10-inch PVC pipe collar
$30
$20
tubing, and fittings $40
$40
$40
$120
$300
$430
$45
$65
$345
$495
Table 2.12.1.4.2: Operation and Maintenance Cost Data for POU CX Devices (1983$)
Cost Category
Labor
(hr/yr)
Annual
Material Cost
Total Annual
Cost 2
Average Total
Annual Cost
Sampling/testing frequency
2/yr
4/yr
6/yr
2
4
6
$40
$80
$120
$62
$124
$186
$124
Resin regeneration interval 3
lyr
2yr
3yr
I
0.5
0.3
$30
$15
$10
$41
$21
$13
$21
Repairs
Low
Average
High
1
2
3
$10
$20
$30
$21
$42
$63
$42
Total cost for mid-range condition
$187
1. Materials cost for sampling/testing represents the cost for laboratory testing.
2. Total cost is based upon $11 .00/hour of labor.
3. This read as Frequency and I /yr, 2/yr, 3Jyr in the original, but the cost and labor figures decreased as the
frequency per year increased. Since this seemed illogical, the heading was changed to Interval for this report.
92
-------
Cost Evaluation of FOU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
2.12.1.5 Reverse Osmosis
Gumerman reported that RO systems removed:
80 percent of arsenite from influent waters with 0.25 mg As(II1)IL;
90 percent of arsenate from influent waters with 0.5 mg As(V)IL;
97 percent of barium from influent waters with 33 mg BaIL;
90 percent of cadmium from influent waters with 0.1 mg Cd/L;
90 percent of both chromium (III) and chromium (VI) from influent waters
with 0.5 mg Cr(llL or VI)/L;
85 percent of fluoride from influent waters with more than 9.3 mg FIL;
99 percent of lead from influent waters with more than 5 mg PbIL and a pH
between 8.8 and 11.0; 95 percent of inorganic mercury from influent waters
with 0.04 mg Hg(inorganic)IL;
60 percent of organic mercury from influent waters with 0.005 mg
Hg(organic)IL;
85 percent of nitrate from influent water levels of 66.7 mg N0 3 /L;
97 percent of selenium (IV) and selenium (VI) from influent waters of 0.33
mg Se(IV or VI)IL; and
93 percent of silver from influent water levels of 0.71 mg AgIL.
RO technology has also proven capable of removing radium, uranium, and some beta
emitting radionuclides.
Construction costs for POU RO units installed under the kitchen sink are presented in
Table 2.12.1.5.1. Costs included an RO membrane unit, a 5-jtm pre-filter, a pressure reservoir, a
small GAC post-filter, a dedicated faucet, a water meter, and all required tubing, fittings, and
adapters. The RO membrane unit has the capacity to produce up to 5 gallons of water per day.
The pressure reservoir has a 3.2 gallon storage capacity. In 1983, virtually all commercially
available RO membranes were composed of cellulose acetate due to its resistance to chlorine.
However, with the development of more reliable GAC pre-filters and better chlorine removal, the
93
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
more efficient TFMs have become more popular. See Section 1.3.5 for additional discussion of
CAMs and TFMs.
Table 2.12.1.5.1: Capital Cost Data for POURO Devices (1983$)
Cost Category
Construction Cost
RO element
$330
Water meter
$40
Labor installation
$50
Subtotal
$420
Contingency
$65
Total
$485
O&M costs for POU RO units are limited to labor and materials because RO units do not
require electrical power for operation. Costs are separated into four categories: sampling/testing,
pre-filter and GAC contactor replacement, RO membrane replacement, and repairs. A range of
O&M costs is shown in Table 2.12.1.5.2 to illustrate the sensitivity of O&M costs to various
assumptions.
94
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options
EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Table 2.12.1.5.2: Operation and Maintenance Cost Data for POU RO Devices (1983$)
Cost Category
Labor
(hr/yr)
Annual
Materal
Total Annual
Cost 2
Average Total
Annual Cost
Sampling/testing frequency
2/yr
4/yr
6/yr
2
4
6
$40
$80
$120
$62
$124
$186
$124
Pre-filter and GAC contactor replacement
frequency
1/yr
2/yr
I
2
$20
$40
$31
$62
$62
RO membrane replacement interval
lyr
2yr
3 yr
I
0.5
0.3
$75
$38
$25
$86
$44
$28
$44
Repairs
Low
Average
High
I
2
3
$10
$20
$30
$21
$42
$63
..-
$42
Total Cost for Mid-range Condition
$272
1. Materials cost for sampling/testing represents the cost for Iaboratoiy testing.
2. Total cost is based upon $11 .00/hour of labor.
2.12.2 Ebbert (1985)
Ebbert provided cost estimates for POU GAC and RO treatment units in a 1985 report.
The typical capital and replacement costs of both types of units are presented in Table 2.12.2.1
Table 2.12.2.1: Cost Data for POU Devices from Ebbert (1985$)
POU Device
Initial Capital Cost
Replacement Costs
GAC
$30-$30Q
$4-$60
RO
S450-S850
$70-$ 140
The cost ranges in Table 2.12.2.1 represent units of different capacities. For example,
flow-through GAC units that attach directly to the faucet are significantly less expensive, and
contain significantly less carbon than under-sink GAC units plumbed directly into the cold water
line. The price of POU RO units varies directly with membrane surface area. As the surface area
of the membrane increases, so does the price of the unit.
95
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
2.12.3 Thkiilwa, New York
EPA conducted a POU demonstration project in Tiskiliwa, New York designed to address
the microbiological water quality problems facing the towns public water system. EPA
intervention became necessary since no one, neither the town nor private companies, claimed
ownership of the system. As a result, EPA could not identif a party to be held responsible.
EPA directed the town to organize a homeowners association that would have the
authority to negotiate a contract with a water service products company to install and maintain
POU UV units. Each homeowner was required to sign an agreement providing the Tiskiliwa
Homeowners Association (THA) with access to their home for monitoring and maintenance. The
contractor hired by the THA was responsible for all monitoring and maintenance of the POU
units. No additional information could be gathered for this case study, despite follow-up efforts
with the involved parties.
2.13 POE Treatment Devices: Regulatory Impact Analysis (1987)
Section 5.6 of the 1987 Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) details the estimated costs of
various alternatives to central treatment for water systems serving small communities of various
populations (i.e., 25-100, 101-500, 501-1,000, and 1,001-3,300). Costs for the purchase,
installation, and maintenance of POE RO and POE IX devices are presented in section 5.6.1 of the
R1A. Several assumptions were made in order to arrive at these cost estimates. The water utility
or community was assumed to be responsible for the selection and purchase of all POE devices,
their installation, and all regularly scheduled maintenance. A single type of device was selected
for all residences and buildings in the community to ensure that all customers would receive equal
protection and maintenance.
The water system was assumed to purchase a number of treatment units equal to the
median number of households in each size of community. The median number of households was
determined by dividing the median service population by the number of people per household
(assumed to be 2.5 for the R1A). A single unit was assumed to be installed at each household.
POE units were not installed with pre-fllters. However, filters could be installed for $50 per unit
(in September 1987 dollars) to extend the service life of the POE units. Replacement cartridges
for these units were priced at $5 each. The RIA recommended annual replacement of all pre-
filters included in POE treatment units. The RIA did not assume any additional labor costs for
filter replacement because the filter cartridges could be changed at the same time as the POE
device cartridge (RO membrane or IX resin cartridge).
While bulk purchase of POE treatment units probably would have resulted in some
reduction in unit costs, especially in the larger size categories (see section 1.5), this was not
considered in the RIA. Neither administrative nor monitoring costs were included in the analysis
total cost calculation. Actual costs for small systems would likely be higher than those reported in
96
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options
EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
this analysis, while those of the largest systems would likely be lower. The RIA cost estimates are
summarized in Table 2.13.1
Table 2.13.!: Cost Data for POE Devices from 1987 RU
Number of
Households
Served
Reverse Osmosis
Ion Exchange
Total
Capital Cost
($)
Annual
O&M Cost
($/yr)
Cost per
Gallon Used
(SIKgal)
Total
Capital Cost
($)
Annual
O&M Cost
($/yr)
Cost per
Gallon Used
($IKgal)
25
$31,500
$5,800
$4.645
$30,000
$9,100
$6165
120
$123,200
$22,700
$4241
$117,300
$35,600
$5.63 I
300
$410,700
$75,600
$3.945
$390,900
$118,500
$5.238
860
51,045,900
$192,500
S3.757
$995,500
$301,800
$4.988
2.14 POU and POE Treatment Devices: U.S. EPA (1988,1989)
The information in this section was drawn from Lykins (1992). A 1988 EPA in-house
study compared the costs of four types of POU and POE systems. Manufacturers were contacted
for current costs, and the following analysis was produced using a pie-defined set of assumptions,
including: $50 per year for O&M costs, a 15-percent contingency cost, a 5-percent outlay to cover
any associated costs, and amortization at 12 percent over 8 years. Tables 2.14.1 and 2.14.2
ouffine the costs developed in this study.
Table 2.14.1: Cost Data for POUDevices from EPA In-House Study (1988$)
Treatment
Technology
.
Capital Costs
Installation
Costs
Amortized
Start-up Costs
Annual O&M
Costs
Total Annual
Cost
GAC
$275
$80
$86
$50
$136
RO
$650
$100
$184
$50
$234
IX
$200
$80
$68
$50
$118
Distillation
$500
$125
$151
$50
$201
I. Total amortized stan-up costs include 15-percent and 5-percent surcharges to cover contingencies and
associated costs. These costs are amortized at 12 percent over 8 years.
97
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options
EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Table 2.14.2: Cost Data for POE Devices from EPA In-House Study (1988$)
Treatment
Technology
Capital Costs
Installation
Costs
Amortized
Start-up Costs
Annual O&M
Costs
Total Annual
Cost
GAC
$2,050
$115
$523
$50
$573
RO
$7,250
$300
$1,824
$50
$1,874
IX
$1,750
$175
$465
$50
$515
Distillation
$10,250
$250
$2,536
$50
$2,586
1. Total amortized start-up costs include 15 percent and 5 percent surcharges to cover contingency and associated
costs. These costs are amortized at 12 percent over 8 years.
In 1989, EPA requested information from POUIPOE manufacturers, suppliers, and
regulators on: 1) the types of POUIPOE devices used at that time; 2) the types of contaminants
removed by these devices; 3) the effectiveness of these devices; and 4) the cost of these devices.
A total of 164 responses were received from industiy sources. The initial capital costs of the
devices are listed in Table 2.14.1.
Table 2.14.1: POU and POE Capital costs from EPA database (1989$)
Technology
POU Devices
POE Devices
Cost Range
Average Cost
Cost Range
Average Cost
Aeration
NA
NA
$1,650.00
$1,650.00
Chlorine
NA
NA
5235.85- 5246.95
$241.40
Distillation
$2 14.38-SI ,749.00
$817.38
$640.43
$640.43
Filtration
S 13.75- 5899.00
$258.63
548.75- 5852.20
$359.22
GAC
54.54-5822.25
$136.62
$539.00-s 1,329.85
$939.71
Ion exchange
5195.00- 5275.00
$235.00
5415.00-51,250.00
$956.67
Neutralization
NA
NA
$335.00-$395.00
$368.33
RO
539.95-5999.00
$353.10
S79.00-$6,340.00
$2,996.02
Softening
NA
NA
$425.00-S 1,200.00
$731.67
UV
5254.00- 5732.00
$550.67
5317.00-5637.00
$486.00
1. The cost range represents units of different capacity in addition to standard price variation within the industry.
2. Any of the above technologies in series (e.g., filtration/GACIRO, etc.)
98
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
3.0 Model System Scenarios
Unit cost, unit ownership, concentration of contaminant(s), liability, monitoring,
maintenance, administrative requirements, and the reliable and consistent maintenance of
adequate public health protection must be thoroughly explored by a community, water district, or
water utility before it opts to use POU or POE technology to comply with the SDWA. The case
studies presented in section 2 detail the experiences of communities that have wrestled with these
and other issues. However, most of the case studies and cost analyses reported in section 2 are
based on projects that took place 5 to 15 years ago.
The POU and POE industry has matured over the past decade. Prices have stabilized, and
the entry of major hardware and department stores into the POU and POE market has exerted
downward pressure on prices. POU and POE technology also has advanced. Over the past few
years, superior unit design and improved manuf cturing techniques have improved the reliability
and treatment capability of POU and POE devices. For example, as discussed in section 1.3.5,
TFMs, once expensive and fragile, have become much less expensive and more resistant to
temperature and pH variations. The efforts of the NSF nd the WQA have greatly improved the
awareness of consumers and vendors to variations in product capabilities and to their proper
implementation. In response to greater consumer demand for safety, many manufacturers have
chosen to test their products under the noncompulsory standards developed by the NSF (see
section 1.5.1). These standards assure consumers that certified units have passed stringent testing
and will perform as advertised. In summary, POU and POE technology has become a more
attractive compliance option for small, financially-disadvantaged communities since most of the
case studies took place.
Cost and performance data were gathered from four firms in June 1997 to review current
costs of POU and POE treatment devices. Two of the firms are well-known national providers
with franchised vendors, one is a local distributor of POU and POE devices, and one is a national
hardware chain that sells water treatment equipment. These four different sources were contacted
to capture the likely pricing variation that communities would encounter.
The vendors were provided the following information for each of nine model scenarios
developed by EPA: the number of households vulnerable to contamination; the principal
contaminant; and the desired effluent level for the contaminant (see Table 3.0.1). Each vendor
was asked to estimate the cost of providing the appropriate POU or POE device to all households
within each model community.
99
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options
EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Table 3.0.1: Model System Scenarios
Scenario
Type of Water
System
Service Population
(number of people; number
of required unitu)
Contaminant
Desired
Effluent
(mglL)
Treatment
Options
Scenarios One
Community
Water System
(CWS)
375; 150
-
Arsenic
0.05
RO
Scenario Two
CWS
375; 150
Arsenic
0.0.5
AA, AX
Scenario Three
Nontransient,
Noncommunity
Water System
80; 10
Copper
1.0
CX
Scenario Four
CWS
230; 92
Alachlor
0.02
GAC
Scenario Five
CWS
50; 16
Radon
300
GAC
Scenario Six
CWS
250; 100
Radon
300
DBA
Scenario Seven
CWS
250; 100
Radon
1,500
GAC
Scenario Eight
CWS
150; 60
Trichloroethylene
0.05
GAC
Scenario Nine
CWS
100; 40
Nitrate
10.0
AX, RO
I. Desired effluent levels for radon are measured in pCifL.
3.1 Arsenic Treatment
As presented in Table 3.0.1, Model Scenarios One and Two both considered a community
attempting to reduce arsenic concentrations to less than 50.0 uglL, the current MCL. Scenario
One called for POU RO units, while Scenario Two sought to generate price quotes for either AX
or AA units.
One vendor expressed concern over the use of POU technology to deal with arsenic
because all taps would not be protected. Section 2.1 provides a brief overview of the health risks
associated with drinking water contaminated by arsenic. It is incumbent upon water utilities to
check local regulations because some communities do not permit the use of POU technology for
arsenic treatment. None of the vendors sold POU AX or POU AA units specifically designed for
arsenic removal. However, three vendors recommended the use of POU RO units to deal with
arsenic contamination. The vendor-estimated costs of these units are presented in Table 3.1.1.
100
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options
EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Table 3.1.1: Cost Data for POU RO Devices from Model Scenario One (1997$)
Unit Costs and
Characteristics
Vendor One
Vendor Two
Vendor Four
Type of System
POU RO
POU RO
POU RO
Capital
$799
$300-$600
$700
Installation
$125
$75-l00
Included with Purchase
Replacement Membrane
$135
$l35-S175
$155
Replacement Pre- and
Post-Filter
Not Provided (NP)
$50
$753
Rental
$30/month + membrane
replacement
$15-$25/month + filter and
membrane replacement
NP
Expected Unit Life
> 10 years
18-25 years 2
NP
Expected Membrane
Life
3..5 years
5 years
5 year
Expected Filter Life
(gallons)
NP
- 500
NP
Yield (gpd)
15
14 -15
NP
Notes
Thple membrane;
Separate tap
Automatic shutoff after
500 gallons treated
GAC post-filter; 3-gallon
storage tank; Separate tap
1. Includes all required membranes and filters.
2. Unit is guaranteed for 7 years.
3. Includes all labor required to replace filters and a water test.
Vendor Two proposed the use of a POE AA system to reduce arsenic concentrations in
household water within the commΰnity. Vendor Three sells a two-cartridge countertop filtration
system that includes an AA canister. The system consists of a combination polypropylene pre-
filter and GAC module, followed by the AA canister equipped with an integral polypropylene
filter. Although this POU unit was designed for lead removal, and while no claims were made as
to its ability to treat arsenic contamination, it may be able to remove arsenic. The vendor-
provided costs for Scenario Two are listed in Table 3.1.2.
101
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options
EPA DR4FT Do Not Cite or Quote
Table 3.1.2: Cost Data for POE and POUAA Devices from Model Scenario Two (1997$)
Costs and
Characteristics
Vendor Two
Twin-tank System
Vendor Two
Single-tank System
Vendor Three
Type of System
POE AA
POE AA
POU AA
CapitaV
51,800- 52,500
51,200-51,800
$65
Installation
NP
NP
Installed by Homeowner
Replacement Media
$166 per year 2
$166 per year2
approximately $76
Replacement Filter
Not Applicable (NA)
NA
$38
Rental
NP
535-545 per month χ salt,
maintenance and AA
NP
Expected Unit Life
NP
NP
NP
Expected Resin Life
NP 3
NP 3
NP
Expected Filter Life
NA
NA
500 gallons
Notes
Twin tank
Single tank
None
1. Includes filly charged media and all required filters.
2. Replacement media costs include salt required for backwashing ($60 per year), and maintenance ($66 per
year). A system test is conducted as part of annual maintenance.
3. Resin is guaranteed for 7 years. -
3.2 Copper Treatment
Model Scenario lhree challenged vendors to provide a POU system that would reduce
copper concentrations in a NTNCWS. The model system supplies water to 10 kitchen and
bathroom taps in different buildings. Approximately 80 people use the facility each day. Vendors
were asked to ensure that the concentration of copper in the effluent not exceed 1.0 mgIL. This
concentration is below the secondary MCL of 1.3 mg Cu/L.
Copper is an essential nutrient, but at high doses it has been shown to cause stomach and
intestinal distress, liver and kidney damage, and anemia. Individuals suffering from Wilsons
disease may be at a higher risk of adverse health effects due to copper.
Copper levels above 1.3 mg/L are rarely found in raw drinking water supplies or in
distributed water. EPA estimates that only 66 water systems have copper in their source water at
levels that exceed the secondary MCL. In some cases, a water system may add copper to control
algal growth in drinldng water. Smelting operations and municipal incineration may also produce
copper. Water resources located near copper mines and smelters have been found to be
102
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options
EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
contaminated with copper. The primary source of copper in drinking water is the corrosion of
copper pipes used for interior plumbing of residences and other buildings by acidic source water.
Table 3.2.1: Cost Data for POE and POU Devices from Model Scenario Three (1997$)
Costs and
Characteristics
Vendor
One
Vendor
Two
Vendor
Two
VeNdor
One
Vendor Two
Vendor Four
Type of System
POE CX
POE CX
POE Sac.
Filter
POU RO
POU RO
POU RO
CapitaV
$1,200-
$1,400
$1,600
$500-
$1,200
$799
$300-$600
$700
Installation
$225
NP
NP
$125
$75-100
included with
Purchase
Replacement
Media
S80 10O2
NP
NA
NA
NA
NA
Replacement
Membrane
NA
NA
NA
$135
$135-S175
- $155
Replacement
Filter
NA
NP
$86-$96
per ye&
NP
$50
$7 S
Rental
$32/month
+ salt
NP
NP
$30/month
+ membrane
replacement
$1 5-$25/month
+ filter and
membrane
replacement
NP
Expected Unit
Life
> 10 years
NP
NP
> 10 years
18-25 years 4
NP
Expected Resin
or Membrane Life
10-20
years
NP
NP
3-5 years
5 years
5 years
Expected Filter
Life
NA
NP
NP
NP
500
NP
Notes
None
None
None
Triple
membrane;
Separate taP
Automatic
shutoff after
500 gallons
treated
GAC post-
filter; 3-gallon
storage tank;
Separate tap
Includes fully cnarged media and all required membranes and filters.
This represents the cost of the salt required for backwashing.
Replacement filter costs include $66 for maintenance and $20-$30 for sacrificial mineral filters each year. A
system test is conducted as part of annual maintenance.
Unit is guaranteed for 7 years.
Includes all labor required to replace filters and a water test.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
103
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Vendor Two recommended a POE sacrificial mineral filter to raise the pH of household
water. If the source of copper is not the pipes of the residence, either an RO or a CX unit can
lower copper concentrations. Vendors One and Two provided price information on POE CX
units, while Vendors One, Two, and Four provided costs for POU RO units. The RO units were
identical to those the particular vendor had recommended for arsenic removal (see section 3.1).
Table 3.2.1 provides pricing information for Model Scenario Three.
3.3 Alachior Treatment
Model Scenario Four required vendors to provide an estimate for POU GAC devices to
reduce alachior levels in a community water system to less than 2.0 g/L, the current MCL. All
four vendors were confident that (3AC could trea t an organic compound like alachlor. However,
carbon pore size significantly affects the removal efficiency and overall performance of a GAC
unit. Thus, while the units the vendors recommended should be adequate to lower alachior
concentrations, any unit selected by a community should be subjected to a pilot study using water
from the community supply before being placed in households. This will permit determination of
the break-through point of the GAC filter and allow system administrators to adopt a replacement
regime that provides an adequate margin of safety for their customers.
Alachlor is a herbicide used for pre-emergent control of annual grasses and broadleaf
weeds in crops. It is the second most widely used herbicide in the United States, with particularly
heavy use on corn and soybeans in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio, and
Wisconsin. Alaclilor was detected in rural domestic wells by EPAs National Survey of Pesticides
in Drinldng Water Wells. EPAs Pesticides in Ground Water Database reports detections of
alachlor in ground water at concentrations above the MCL in at least 15 States.
EPA has found that acute exposure to alachior may lead to skin and eye irritation. Long -
term exposure to high levels of alachior may result in damage to the liver, kidney, spleen, nasal
mucosa, and eyes. Animal studies confirm these findings (IRIS I 993b). In addition, there is, some
evidence that alachior may have the potential to cause cancer from a lifetime exposure at levels
above the MCL.
Three vendors offered price information on their standard POU under-sink GAC units.
Vendor Four does not carry a POU GAC device and recommended the use of a POU RO unit to
treat for alachior. The pricing information provided by the vendors is presented in Table 3.3.1.
104
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options
EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Table 3.3.J. Cost Data for POU GAC and POU RU Devices from Model Scenario Four (1997$)
Costs and
Characteristics
Vendor One
Vendor One
Vendor Two
Vendor Three
Vendor Four
Type of System
POU GAC
POU GAC
POU GAC
POU GAC
POU RO
Capital
$250
$150
S150-S200
$100
$700
Installation
Included with
Purchase
Homeowner
Installation
Included with
Purchase
Homeowner
Installation
Included with
Purchase
Replacement
Media
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Replacement
Membrane
NA
NA
NA
NA
$155
Replacement
Filter
$49
$45
$10425
$17
$752
Rental
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
Expected Unit
Life
> 10 years
NP
> 10 years
NP
NP
Membrane Life
NA
NA
NA
NA
.
5 years
Exjected Filter
Life
1,000 gallons
1,500 gallons
Variable
1,000 gallons
NP
Daily Yield
15 gallons
I gpm
Unlimited
1 gpm
NP
Notes
None
Single GAC
cartridge
Backwashable
filter
Dual GAC
cartridges
GAC post-
filter; 3-gallon
storage tank;
Separate tap
1. Includes all required membranes and filters.
2. Includes all labor required to replace filters and a water test.
3.4 Radon Treatment
Model Scenario Five asked vendors to supply pricing information for providing 16 POE
GAC units to reduce radon in household water below 300 pCi/L. Model Scenario Six asked
vendors to supply pricing information for a community water system serving 100 households.
Vendors were asked to provide unit prices for at least 100 units capable of treating radon to less
than 1,500 pCi/L for Model Scenario Seven.
105
-------
Cost Evaluation ofPOU/POE Treatment Options
EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
While none of the vendors had extensive experience with radon removal, three had a
preferred system for removing radon. None had design specifications sensitive to effluent
concentrations, and none recommended different equipment or provided a different unit price for
any of the three scenarios.
Vendors One and Two provided price information for POE GAC units. Vendor One
specified a unit designed to be submerged in 6 inches of water to shield the household from alpha
and beta radiation. Vendor Two provided information for a back-washable POE GAC filter
system. Vendor Two also provided cost infonnation for an aeration tank that could be installed in
conjunction with the GAC unit. Adding an aeration tank in a POE system would remove more
radon, but might not be necessaiy to reduce radon levels to 1,500 pCiIL. Vendor Four
recommended the use of an open, direct-vented aeration system followed by a GAC element to
reduce radon contamination. A UV element (or another form of disinfection) would be
appropriate for these systems due to the potential for bacteriological colonization of the GAC
media (see section 1.4). However, the quoted prices for the recommended units did not include
post-treatment disinfection. The pricing data provided by the vendors for the specified systems
are presented in Table 3.4.1.
Table 3.4.1: Cost Data for POE GAC Devices from Model Scenarios Five, Six, and Seven (1997$)
Costs and
Characteristics
Vendor 1
Vendor 2
Vendor 2
Vendor 4
Type of System
POE GAC
POE GAC
POE GAC with
Aeration
POE GAC with
Aeration
Capital
$2,000
S800-$2,500
$1200-$2,900
$2,000
Installation
$225
Included with
Purchase
Included with
Purchase
Included with
Purchase
Replacement Media
$300 per year
NP
NP
$150 per year 2
Replacement Filter
NP
$20-$30 per year
$20-$30 per year
NP
Rental
NP
NP
NP
NP
Expected Unit Life
NP
> 10 years
> 10 years
NP
Expected Filter Life
NP
Variable
Variable
NP
Daily Yield
NP
Unlimited
Unlimited
NP
Notes
Water shielding
Back-washable
filter
Aeration tank;
Back-washable
filter
Direct vented
aeration
I. Includes fully charged carbon bed and all required filters.
2. Includes all necessary labor.
106
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
3.5 Trichloroethylene Treatment
Model Scenario Eight asked vendors to provide unit pricing information for 60 units
designed to reduce TCE concentrations below the current MCL of 5.0 ugfL. Section 2.9
provides a brief overview of the health risks associated with exposure to water contaminated by
TCE.
TCE is a VOC and may gasify at relatively low temperatures. Because TCE may be
absorbed through the skin, a POE system would be required to treat for ICE contamination (see
section .1.2.2).
Vendor Two recommended the same back-washable POE GAC unit for Scenario Eight as
recommended for radon removal in Scenarios Five, Six, and Seven. Neither Vendor Three nor
Vendor Four provided pricing information for Scenario Eight. However, the unit recommended
for radon removal by Vendor Four would most likely remove TCE as well. The aeration
elements incorporated in the systems for radon removal offered by Vendor Two and Vendor Four
would be appropriate (and potentially necessary) to remediate high influent concentrations of
ICE. Due to the potential for bacteriological colonization of the GAC media, UV radiation or
another form of disinfection would be appropriate. However, none of the recommended units
came equipped with post-treatment disinfection. The pricing information for Model Scenario
Eight is identical to that presented above in Table 3.4.1 for Scenarios Five, Six, and Seven.
3.6 Nitrate Treatment
Model Scenario Nine asked vendors to recommend and provide pricing information for
treatment systems designed to reduce nitrate concentrations in household water for a community
of about 100 people or about 40 households. Vendors were asked to base their estimates on the
maintenance of an effluent nitrate concentration of no more than 10 mgfL, the current MCL.
Section 2.6 provides a brief overview of the health risks associated with drinking nitrate-
contaminated water. While relatively innocuous to the majority of the population even in
relatively high concentrations, nitrate may cause severe acute health effects in children under 6
months. To prevent inadvertent poisoning, a water utility that opted for a POU treatment strategy
for nitrate would need to undertake an educational effort targeted at expectant mothers and the
mothers of young children. The program would emphasize that only water from the treated tap
should be used for drinking or cooking. The successful implementation of such a program may
be beyond the managerial capacity of many small water systems. Therefore, a POE treatment
strategy would probably provide more complete protection of the public health than a POU
treatment strategy (even one that included an educational campaign).
107
-------
Cost Evaluation of POUIPOE Treatment Options
EPA DR4FT Do Not Cite or Quote
Table 3.6.1: Cost Data for POU and POE Devices from Model Scenario Nine (1997$)
Unit Costs and
Characteristics
Vendor I
Vendor 2
Vendor 2
Vendor 2
VendOr 4
Vendor 4
Type of System
POU RO
POU RO
POE AA
POE AA
POE AX
POE RO
Capital
$799
S300-S600
$1,800- -
$2,500
81,200-51,800
$1,500
$10,000-
$15,000
Installation
$125
575-100
NP
NP
Included
with
Purchase
Included
with
Purchase
Replacement
Media
NA
NA
$166 per
year
$166 per year 2
580-100
per year
NA
Replacement
Membrane
$135
8135-5175
NA
NA
NA
$500 per
year
Replacement l -
and Post-Filter
Not
vided
(NP)
$50
NA
NA
NP
$250 per
year
Rental
$30/month
+ membrane
replacement
$1 5-825/month
+fifterand
membrane
replacement
NP
535-845 per
month + salt,
maintenance
and AA
NP
NP
Expected Unit
Life
> 10 years
18-25 years 2
NP
NP
NP
NP
Expected Media
Life
NA
NA
NP 3
NP 3
NP
NA
Expected
Membrane Life
3-5 years
5 years
NA
NA
NA
NP
Expected Filter
Life
NP
500 gallons
NA
NA
NP
NP
Yield (gpd)
15 gallons
14-15 gallons
NP
NP
NP
250 gpd
(By custom
design)
Notes
Triple
membrane;
Separate tap
Automatic
shutoff after
500 gallons
ft. ed
Twin tank
Single tank
None
None
1.
2.
3.
Includes fully cnarged media and all required membranes and filters.
Replacement media costs include salt required for backwashing ($60 per year) and maintenance ($66 per
year). A system test is conducted as part of annual maintenance.
This represents the cost of the salt required for backwashing and resin recharge.
108
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Vendor One claimed that its POU RO unit would remove 91 percent to 96 percent of
nitrate. The POU units detailed by Vendors One and Two for Scenario Nine were identical to the
units they recommended for arsenic removal in Scenarios One and Two. The vendors provided
the same unit prices for all three scenarios.
Vendor Two also provided pricing information for two POE AA systems that would
remove nitrate. The AX unit sold by Vendor Four and recommended for nitrate removal is
identical to Vendor Fours water softening units, except that an AX resin is substituted for a CX
resin. Vendor Four provided an approximate cost for a POE RO system, based on a single
installation. The vendor indicated that these applications were extremely rare because they are
veiy expensive and because in many localities the water treated by an RO unit cannot, by law, be
run through copper pipe due to its corrosivity without post-treatment pH adjustment. Vendor
Four installed polybutyl pipes to every point in the home within which it installed the POE RO
unit. Post-treatment pH adjustment is probably a more cost-efficient way to neutralize the
corrosivity of water treated by POE RO devices. Pricing information for Model Scenario Nine is
presented in Table 3.6.1.
3.7 Conclusions
To examine the costs of POU and POE units, we contacted three local and franchise
vendors of water treatment equipment and requested system prices based on model cases. The
price requests were not bids and vendors were not asked to custom design units based on
characteristics presented in the model case. Equipment from a fourth vendor, a national
hardware chain, was priced to determine the prices a system would pay if it chose to have system
personnel install equipment.
The prices obtained from the vendors provide a first-order estimate of the capital and
O&M costs associated with each of the major POU and POE technology types, including CX,
AX, AA, RO, aeration, and activated carbon. In general, costs were roughly consistent between
vendors in those cases in which the vendor-recommended equipment was similar. When vendor-
recommended approaches differed (e.g., CX versus pH adjustment for copper control), greater
pricing variation resulted.
Requesting general pricing from local and franchise vendors has limitations. The pricing
supplied by the vendors is most likely relevant only for small purchases of 10 units or less. The
pricing information received from vendors was further limited because we did not provide the
vendor with detailed information regarding source water characteristics, nor did we request a
custom design based on source water characteristics. Because of this, the pricing information
received was general. To refine our costs and to better reflect purchases of larger numbers of
units, an approach (described in section 4) was developed that incorporated hypothetical influent
concentrations, examined the effect of competing contaminants, developed conceptual unit
109
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not or Quote
designs (including filter sizes and media capacities), and used known wholesale costs to develop
large-order pricing schedules.
110
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
4.0 Cost Analysis
Four steps were involved in developing cost equations to estimate the cost of
implementing POU and POE treatment in small communities. Figure 2.1 outlines the process by
which the cost estimates were developed for the use of AA, GAC, aeration, IX, and RO devices
to reduce concentrations of specified contaminants to the levels set by the NPDWRs and the
National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (NSDWRs).
First, a literature search was conducted on the capabilities of POU and POE devices and
the experience of communities that had installed such Ireatment. Summaries of the field and
laboratory studies identified through the literature search are presented in section 2. The
literature search revealed that important changes had taken place since the case studies were
published in the I 980s and early 1 990s. The POE and POU industry had matured, and
manufacturing techniques and system designs had improved. Therefore, adjusting the costs
presented in the case studies to account for inflation would not accurately estimate the costs
small communities would likely face for the purchase, installation, and maintenance of POE and
POU devices today.
To supplement the data drawn from the case studies, vendors were contacted to obtain
current pricing information for POE and POU treatment units. The results of the vendor survey
are reported in section 3. As discussed in section 3.7, requesting general pricing from local or
franchise vendors has limitations. The costs provided by the vendors are most likely relevant
only for the purchase of 10 units or less. The pricing information from vendors was further
limited because we did not request a custom designed system based on specific source water
characteristics.
The third step of the cost development process was to develop cost equations for the
implementation of the five technologies considered in this report. This step had three goals. The
first was to determine a realistic discounting schedule for volume purchases. The second was to
ensure that appropriate technology, at the appropriate point of application, was used to address
the various contaminants. The third goal was to combine capital costs with the cost of O&M
required of water systems that elect to implement a POE or POU strategy to achieve compliance
with the SDWA.
Nationally applicable wholesale pricing information was obtained for POU and POE units
to develop a realistic schedule for volume discounts. The technical expertise of original
equipment manufacturers (OEMs) was also tapped in step three of the cost development process.
To further investigate pricing and discounting of POU and POE systems, components for each of
the systems were conceptually designed; parts were specified and suggested retail and wholesale
prices were noted. OEMs of GAC and AA media were able to detail the removal capabilities of
their products. This information enabled the design of treatment units engineered to remove a
specified contaminant with a precise degree of efficiency. The total cost of implementing a
Ill
-------
Cost Evaluation ofPOU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
POE or POU treatment strategy may be disaggregated into capital and O&M costs. Design
parameters, treatment claims, and pricing schedules used by numerous finns were researched.
To ensure a reasonable and current estimate for the cost of implementing a POU or POE
treatment strategy in a small community, several assumptions were developed within each of
these cost categories. These assumptions were based on vendor experience, case study
information, information from OEMs, and contractor expertise. Each assumption used in
estimating the total annual cost of each POU or POE treatment strategy is presented, along with
its underlying rationale, in the following sections.
In the fourth and final step of the development process the case studies and the data
gathered from the vendor survey were compared to the cost equations presented in section 4.
When the case study or vendor costs were substantially different than the Cadmus costs, the
Cadmus costs and associated assumptions were revisited to ensure accuracy. In all cases of
substantial disagreement a logical explanation for the deviation was found. In general, Cadmus
cost estimates were in good agreement with the updated costs from the case studies and the
vendor reported data (see Figures in section 4.4).
4.1 General Assumptions
This analysis was designed to include costs incurred by a water system over a 10-year
period. This time frame was selected to take into account the long planning horizons frequently
adopted by water utilities.
It was assumed that an average household size of three individuals based on the current
average household size in the United States, and that each individual would consume an average
of 1 gallon of water per day for drinking and cooking, or a yearly household water requirement ΰf
1,095 gallons. Each individual was assumed to use 100 gallons of water each day for all
purposes (e.g., drinking, washing, etc.). This assumption is consistent with the findings of the
1997 Community Water System Survey. Therefore, the total annual water requirement of each
household was determined to be 109,500 gallons.
According to the above assumptions, a POU device would need to treat 1,095 gallons of
water each year to meet the drinking and cooking needs of a household, in contrast, since POE
devices treat all water that enters a household, they were assumed to treat 109,500 gallons of
water per year. For the purposes of this cost analysis, central treatment facilities were assumed to
treat the same quantity of water (i.e., 109,500 gallons) for each household served by the water
system.
It was assumed that a water authority would have staff members that could perform
simple tasks such as sample collection and filter cartridge replacement. If a water authority had
expertise in POU and POE systems, projected costs could be reduced substantially depending on
112
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
the cost of that in-house expertise. An authority willing to assume the burden of installatIon and
the risk of liability could reduce costs further.
The standard work week consists of 40 hours. Therefore, the average workday was
assumed to consist of 8 hours for this cost analysis. The fully loaded wage rate for minimally
skilled individuals employed by the water utility was set at $14.50 per hour. The fuliy loaded
wage for skilled laborers was set at $28.00 per hour. These rates were used for systems serving
fewer than 3,300 individuals, and systems serving 3,300 or more individuals, respectively, in the
Information Collection Request (ICR) for the Public Water System Supervision Program
submitted to EPA in July 1997. This ICR has been submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget (0MB) and is still under their review. It was concluded that minimally skilled laborers
could effectively perform administrative duties, install POU units, sample for contaminants, and
replace filters, membranes, and other basic parts on POU units because these are all relatively
simple tasks. The installation and maintenance of POE treatment units was assumed to require
the use of skilled laborers due to the sophistication of these devices.
It was assumed that a central distribution system was in place in all comniunities for the
purposes of this cost analysis. In the absence of this assumption, the costs for the
implementation of central treatment would be significantly greater.
4.2 Capital Costs
The purchase and installation of treatment devices are included in the total capital cost for
POU and POE devices. To ensure the provision of adequately treated water, it was assumed that
the water system would supply a POU or POE unit capable of addressing the contaminant of
concern to each household in the service community (see sections 1.3,2, 3).
Water treatment dealers frequently guaranteed their products for 10 years and often claim
their useful life to be far longer. However, since POU devices are typically small, relatively
inexpensive, pieces of equipment, the average effective life for a POU unit was assumed to be 5
years. Since POE units are generally larger, carry longer warranties, and are located in more
protected areas (i.e., the basement rather than underneath the kitchen sink), these units were
assumed to have an average effective life of 10 years. Therefore, given the 10-year time frame of
this cost analysis (see section 4.1), the capital cost for a POU treatment strategy must include the
purchase of two P013 units per household, while the capital cost for POE treatment must include
the purchase of only one treatment unit per household.
The cost of a water meter and automatic shut-off valve was included in the capital cost of
all POU and POE devices to ensure that units would comply with the requirements of section
1412(b)(4)(E)(ii) SDWA. A local vendor (or by the local branch of a national vendor) was
113
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
assumed to provide all necessary treatment equipment. Thus, no shipping and handling costs
would be incurred by a community that opted to implement a POU or POE compliance strategy.
In step three of the cost development process, wholesale prices were reviewed. Based on
these data and conversations with industry sources, a volume discount schedule was developed
for the purchase of POU and POE units. Because the wholesale prices are available nationally,
this method gives a good indication of the discounts a typical small community could expect to
receive for large purchases. It was determined that a vendor would charge retail price for a single
POU unit, would allow a 15-percent discount for 10 units, and retain a 30 percent profit margin
for 100 or more POU units. Prices were interpolated between these data points. An identical
discount was applied for the majority of POE units. However, vendors professed very limited
knowledge of POE RO systems and reported installing very few of these systems. Therefore, a
10-percent discount was assumed for purchases of 10 units and a 15-percent discount was
assumed for the purchase of 100 or more units. Again, prices were interpolated between these
data points. Due to liability concerns associated with radon removal, aeration and GAC units
used to treat for radon were discounted according to the following schedule: 10 percent for 10
units and 20 percent for 50 or more units.
POU installations were assumed to require 1 hour per unit and POE installations were
assumed to require 3 hours per unit due to their greater size and complexity. As noted in section
4.1, the use of skilled labor was assumed for POE installations, while it was assumed that all
POU devices would be installed with unskilled labor. All units would be tested for proper
operation as part of the installation procedure. The time required to travel between households
was assumed to be included in total installation time.
Daily preparation (preparation of all necessary parts and fittings, completion of
appropriate paperwork, etc.) and travel to and from the community was assumed to require 2
hours. Therefore, an installer would actually spend only 6 hours of his or her day installing
treatment devices assuming an 8 hour workday (see section 4.1). Given these assumptions, two
POE units or six POU units may be installed per employee per day.
It was assumed that the installation process would become more efficient once installers
became accustomed to the units and could pre-fabricate units to speed the installation procedure.
Therefore, installation time was assumed to decrease by two-thirds if more than 10 units were
installed in a community. Under this assumption (e.g., for a community of 25 households)
would permit up to nine POU units or three POE units could be installed each day. No additional
efficiency was assumed for larger installation projects.
To compare the capital costs of equipment with different effective service lifetimes,
permit the comparison of capital costs for equipment with different effective service lifetimes,
purchase, installation and any included contingency costs for POU and POE units were
114
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
amortized over their expected effective lifetimes (five and 10 years, respectively) at 10-percent.
In keeping with general practice used to calculate the costs for large construction projects, a 20-
year amortization period was adopted to determine the annual cost of central treatment plants.
The capital costs of central treatment systems were amortized at 10 percent. The 10 percent
amortization rate was frequently mentioned in the literature (Gumerman 1984; BelIen 1985).
Cost data for the purchase and installation of POE and POU treatment devices are
provided in Tables 4.2.1,4.2.2, and 4.2.3. These exhibits present the derived capital costs along
side pricing information from all appropriate case studies. All pricing information from the case
studies that is presented in the exhibits was updated to 1997 dollars using the PPI. In addition, a
15-percent contingency fee was applied to initial capital and installation costs to cover
unexpected costs that arise due to the unique characteristics of each site.
4.3 Operation and Maintenance Costs
O&M costs may be divided into three types: maintenance, sampling and lab analysis, and
administrative. Maintenance costs vary greatly depending upon community size, the contaminant
of concern, treatment technology, and where the treatment technology is applied. Sampling and
lab costs depend only upon the size of the community and the contaminant of concern.
Administrative costs vary according to community size. These costs are discussed in the
following three sections. O&M cost data for the implementation of POE and POU strategies are
presented in Tables 4.3.1, 4.3.2, and 4.3.3.
4.3.1 Maintenance Costs
Without penodic servicing, POU and POE units cannot be depended upon to provide
adequate protection of public health. Not only is periodic maintenance necessary for the
treatment strategy to reduce the level of a particular contaminant, appropriate maintenance of all
household treatment units is the legal responsibility of a water system that installs them as apart
of a compliance strategy (see sections 1 and 1.5.3).
All maintenance was assumed to be performed by trained water system personnel because
the POU or POE units must be owned, controlled, and maintained by the public water system or
by a person under contract with the public water system. POU maintenance (e.g., tightening
joints, replacing filters, etc.) was assumed to require 45 minutes per unit while POE maintenance
was assumed to require 2 hours per unit. All units would be tested for proper operation and all
water meters would be calibrated as part of the maintenance procedure. The time required to
travel between households within the community was also assumed to be included in total
installation time for this cost analysis.
115
-------
Type a Point of
Source
Unit Application
Table 42.1: Capital Cost Data Case Studies
Contaminant
Number of
Purchase
installation
Contingency
Total Capital
Amortized Capital
Households (hh)
Price ($Ihh)
Cost (8 11th)
Cost ($Ihh)
Cost (1997$ h)
Costs (1991$IhhSyr)
PA
POU
Fskba.PJ Eug .OR 1N3
Arsenic
4
$250
$19
NA
$362
$95
AA.
POU
Gumerman (US): 1983
ArsenIc
I
$280
$40
$50 -
$507
$134
AA
POU
Gumerman (PL) 1983
Arsenic
I
$330
$120
.
$70
$7 12
$188
U
POU
7dsdF.rms . L 1984.
luodd&AmnI..
8
$338
S IP
NA
- $357
$94
U
POU
Papago Butte, AZ 1985 FlucildelArsanic
1
$501
SIP
NA
$520
$137
P A
- - POt)-
FhioddelAresilc
1
S514
$ 19
.NA
p 4$33 - , -
$ 14 1
U
POU
You and I TP. AZ lOSt.
l-luofldelArsenlc
1
$345
SIP
NA
$364
596
U
. POU
PJr bui , iL 19$5
FhioitdehIneni
10- ,
- S O1
. 513. 1
. - NA -
$414 .-.
$109
U
POU
Bureau Junction, IL 1985 F Iuoflde/Assenic
40
$416
$13
NA
$429
$113
AC
Central
: Goodrtdi 1990 -
DBCP
- .10
. NP.,
- NP .
-Y NP - --
- .Np
.. Np -
AC
Central
Goodrich 1990
OBCP
25
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
.AC
Central
.-Goodddi:1990 ..
DBCP -
50-
NP - NP .-
:Np -
NP- - ,
AC
Central
Goodrich 1992
DBCP
10
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
AC
- CentraI
Gooddch:l992
DBCP ,-
. - .15 -
NP 4
.NP .
- NP,
- H NP - - -
NP.-.
AC
Central
Goodrich. 1992
DSCP
20
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
AC
CeρbeI
- Goo dtI992- -
DBOP
- 25 .
NP-r
- NP .
. . :sp. .
fl NP ;. .
AC
Central
Goodnch 1992
DBCP
50
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
AC
- POE
- Gooddck 1G90 ;
- DBCP -
. 10-
4 CP1CGT
tCpKGT
- CpKGT
. - Cp Gr ,
CpKGT:
AC
POE
Goodnch 1990
DBCP
25
CpKGT
CpKGT
CpKGT
CpKGT
CpKGT
AC
POE -
,Goodilch 1O9o 2
DBCR
50 -
C (GT -
CpKGT-
iCpKGT
- i t Cp! -
CpKGt-
AC
POE
Goodrich 1992
0 5CR
10
$2,188
IWP
CpKGT
CpKGT
CpKGT
4 AC.
POE
Goodrich 1992W -
DSCP L
15
$z388
lWP CplCGT-
Cp GT CPICGTr -
AC
AC.
POE
. .. l OE
GoodrIch 1992
Oooddcft1992
DBCP
., DBCPr
20
25 - .
52,188
$2J88t
1WP
! eclWP-
CpKGT CpKGT
KGT-. , :i CPKGT -
C PKGT
CpKOI.
AC
POE
Goodrich 1992
DBCP
50
$2,188
1WP
CPKGT
CpKGT
CpKGT
AC
POE -
Fresno,Cki990 .-
.DBCQ :
-j0-
CjICGT
KGT.
.CpKG1-
.a -CpKOT
, CpkGT -
AC
Central
Goodrich 1990
OCP
10
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
-AC
-Cential
? -,Oooddth:-1990-
- DCP- ,
- 25
-- NP
NP ,
NP
-N .
- NPi- i,
AC
Central
Goodrich 1990
DCP
50
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
AC
Central -
, Goods1ch: 1992
OCR
10 .-
.1W -
. - NP -
- - NP
-NP -
NP. -
AC
Central
GOOdriCh 1992
OCR
15
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
AC
,Centrai
Gooddch:192
OCP-.
-
20 - ,NP; -
;-NP
-NP - .-
NP.
. Np.
AC
Central
Goodrich 1992
DCP
25
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
AC
Central
Goodrich: 1902
DCP
- 50
NP
NP
- NP
NP
NP
AC
POE
Goodrich 1990
DCP
10
CpKGT
CpKGT
CpKGT
CpKGT
CpKGT
AC , POE -
- - Goodrich: 1900-
- OCR -
, 25 -
CpkG1
CpKGT
CpKOT -
CpKOT -
Cp I(GT
AC
POE
GoodrIch 1990
DCP
50
CpKGT
CpKGT
CpKGT
CPKGT
CpKGT
AC
POE
Goodrich: 1992
DCP
10
-,Q168
.1WP
p! GT -
- Cp ICGT .
CpICGT
AC
POE
Goodrich 1992
DCP
15
32. 188
IWP
-
CpKGT
CpKGT
CpKGT
AC
POE
Goodrich- 1992
OCR
20
$2188
IWP
CpKGT
CpKGT
CpKGT
AC
POE
Goodrich 1992
DCP
25
$2,188
IWP
CpKGT
CpKGT
CPKGT
AC
POE...
.- Goodrtck 1992
- DCP
- 50 ..
$2,488 -:
-η MR
CpKGT
CPKGT
- CpKGT
AC
POE
Florida (Type 1)1987
LOB
1
$1,000
IWP
NA
$1,252
$204
AC
- POE
Florida (Type Ii): 1981
EDB
- I - -,
-$ 1050
- 1WP
- NA
$1,316-
$214
AC
POE
V.naus$tiIs(GAC 10 ) 1989
Radon
1
3828
$116
NA
$944
$154
AC
POE
V u.S i(W C17) 1889
Radon
. 1
-. S1,Q 7i
S116
NA
$1,103 .
$194 -
AC
POE
VuIouISus$(QAC3OI 1989
Radon
1
51,350
$116
NA
$1,466
$239
Table 4 2 1 . Case Studies
Page 1
-------
Type o Point of
Source
Unit Application
Table 4.2.1: Capital Cost Data Case Studies
Contaminant
Number of Purchase installation Contingency Total Capital Amortized Capital
Households (hh) Piles ($ihh) Cast ($lhhJ Cost ($Ihhi Cost (1997$Ihh) Costs (1997$Thh/yr)
AC
AC
POU
POLl
Gumerman(US) 1983
Gumerman (PL) 1983
SOC5
1
. .t. 1 . -.
$220
$fl0
$40
. $120
$40
$60
$411
$816
$108
. - . $163
AC
POU
Ebbert (var cap) 1985
SOCs
I
$280
$19
$42
$321
$85
AC.
POtJEPADal iss .r.cap )1Ns.
50C :
1 .i--
$204.
. .- ,519 .
-$33 .
$257.
- . .$98 -
AC
POU
EPA Study. 1088
SOCs
I
$378
$97
$95
$571
$151
AC.
Central
Lytais(WwIplp.):199
TCE
.- .150 ti-.
. . . j4P ;
441!
P1P - .
T) NP -
44p - ,
AC
Central
Lyklns(SDwIplpe) 199
TCE
150
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
AC
Central
Lyldns FoplpeJ; 199
.i TCE L
-..15O
r NP
-jNP .
p p . ,
. - :NR
AC
Central
PubI.mCcimlV.NY(.aL). I
TCE
110
TAC
TAC
TAC
TAC
TAC
AC
Central
Goodridi 1890
ICE- -
- 10 -
NP
NP
--NP .
. 4 t
. .. . NP.
AC
Central
GoodrIch 1990
TCE
25
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
AC
Central
Gcoddth:1990
ICE
50
,NP
NP
. . ,NP
NP- , :.
AC
Central
Goodnch. 1992
TCE
10
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
AC
Central
Good i1th 192 ..
TCE
p 15 --
--.NP -
. NP
.r NP .
- ,P4P ..
i. Np
AC
Central
Goodrich 1902
ICE
20
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
AC
Central
Goo&Ith:1992
..TCE,
.1 . 5 ( N .,
. f4p
:..
AC
Central
Goodnclr 1992
ICE
50
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
AC
POE
Lyldns. 1992
ICE
. , 150
52 .188-
NP .
$328 ,!
$2, 3 47 -
$410.
AC
POE
PutnwiCounty.NY 1987
TCE
67
$823
$494
NA
$1 ,650
$268
AC
POE
GoodrIch: 1990.
TCE
. 10 .
- CpICGT
CpICGT
CpKOT.-.
. CpKGT.
CpKGT
AC
POE
Goodnch 1990
TCE
25
CpKGT
CpKGT
CpKGT
CpKGT
CpKGT
AC
POE
GoodrIch: 1990
ICE
50
CpKGT
CpKGT.
CpKGT
C9 ICGT
.. CpKGT
AC
POE
Goodnctv 1992
TCE
10
$2188
IWP
CpKGT
CpKGT
CpKGT
AC
POE
Gaodrfch 1992
TCE .
15 .
.,t $2,188
: lWP;
:. -CpKGT :
.c.. CpKGT
CpKGT :
AC
POE
Goodrich 1992
TCE
20
52,188
IWP
CpKGT
CpKGT
CpKGT
AC
POE
. GoodrIch: 1992
ICE
1 25 .
$2188
lWi
CpICGT
CpKGT
CpKGT
AC
POE
GOOdrICh 1992
TCE
50
$2,188
IWP
CpXGT
CpKGT
CpKGT
AC
POU
Radii yTo alip , K lass
Silverdale, PA 1985
EPA DIII ISM, cap) 1050
TCE
,- 12 ; .
$377
- , y p
NA
- Sm
. $100
TCE
Idi.aaSolio NYuas VOCsRadon -. 1
49
$289
t ,$2 ,050
IWP
.$113-.
NA
,NA ,-
5289
. SZ817 - .
$76
.- $459
AC
P01.1
AC
POE
VQCsFRadon
I
$940
$112
$158
$1,360
$221
AC
POE
AC
ACIDBA
ACID8
Aeration
POE
EPAStudy: 1988
VOCsFRedon
- I .
.$2 ,53j.
-$123.
$531
S3 185 -
$518
POE
GoodrIch 1990
ICE
150
55,823
NP
$343
$8,466
$1,052
POE
Elldiaft 1089
ICE
- I I $4 , 685 . , MP
. -
$4,685-.
$762 -
POE
EPA O.4. . .I(var cap) 15$
VOCs/Radon
- 1
$i959
$112
$311
$2381
$388
AX
. POU
F 0 ,M,OisnC lsS3
Ajsenlc
,,, 4 - .- .
. $350-
- $19
. . NA
$499
$132 .
AX
POE
EPAow ..(var cap) 105
Arsen,cjNitrale
1
$1155
$112
$190
$1,457
$237
AX
POE
EPA Study: 1988
Arsenlc/Nltrati
I
$2,187
$212
$478
. $2,855.
. . $446
AX
POU
Gumeiman (US) 1 Arsenic/Nitrate
$350
$40
$60
$616
$163
AX
POLl
Gumerrnan (P1.): 1 83 Arsenic/Nltreti
1
$4O0
$120 .,
$80
$822 -
$217
AX
POLl
EPA Dalatsss(v.r cap)
Arsenic/Nitrate
5318
$19
$51
$387
$102
AX
POLl
EPA Study: 1888
Arsenic/Nitrate
1
$$8
. $97
$77
5461
--- $122
AX
Central
Lykiris (TP w!plpe). 1 Nitrate
150
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
AX
Central
Lylths(SDw iJpe):I . Nitrate.
I50 ;
.i NP -
NP
NP
- .,NP 4
-.. - NP
AX
Central
Lykins (wlo pipe) 1 Nitrate
150
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
AX
POE
L 1drts 1992
NItrate
150
$2,188
- $75
$339
$2603
5424
AX
POE
Rivaada ,thhald.NY Nitrate
1
52,325
$175
NA
$2,553
$415
AX-
POU.
R adlSauiThlmld , NY. Nltjate
-. .1 ,
$306
$80
NA
$410. -
- $108
AX
POU
Colorado and New Maiden 1003
Uranium
12
$125
$13
NA
$184
$49
-I
Table 4 2 1 Case Studies
Page 2
-------
Table 4.2.1: Capital Cost Data Case Studies
Number of
Contaminant Households (hh)
Type o
Unit
Point of
Application
Source
Purchase Installation Contingency Total Capital Amortized Capital
PrIce ($lhh) Cost ($lhh) Cost ($lhh) Coat (1997$Ihh) Costs (1997$Ihhlyr)
CX
POE
R1A. 1987
Copper I 25
TCC
1TC
TIC
51,316
5214
CX
-. POE
;R 1g87- ; ppar J- . 12O .-
TC
TC
. Trc - ,
,
- .. $145
CX
POE
RIA 1987 Copper
300
TCC
TTC
TIC
$1,174
$191
CX
POE
RIA 1981 - - Cappΰ
-- 880
. TCC .
TIC
TIC
- $1,046-
- 4170
CX
POE
EPAOatabaca(v cap) isia Copper
I
$1,155
5112
$190
$1,457
$237
CX
FOE -
EPA8tUdy 1868 .. Coppe .
: -3,V
.$Z167 -
$212 -
-$476 - .
$2 i55b:c .
. .
CX
CX
POU
POtP
Gumerman (US) 1983 Copper
Gumerman(PL):1983 Copper-.
1
-
$280
$3IO
$40
, .$120 .-,
$45
1?V.
$472 $125
$678 - i. - - $ 179 ,
CX
POU
EPA Oatabrn(v.r cap) liii Copper
- EPAS Idy -I988 L .Cce .
Bellevue, WI 1989 Radium
asi ds stI Radknn
1 $318
$19 $51
$97 - $17
$387
. $46f .. - -
5102
-, .I S122 - .-
CX
. POti
CX
Central
1,282
TAC
TAC
TAC
TAC
$118
CX-.
POE .-
;;1 ,282Z
$358
.$48
. .4$88
CX
POE
Radium
1,282
$1,107
32.857
Z i J λ .
$27
$170
51,512
-
5246
c n - .Cenb j . -
Glbicncanyon;CA1992 Bacteda
. .-.lWP
$fl 78* ,r
Cva ,fsc va
POE
Bactefla
140
575
NA
$Z922
$476
s7s
5 12ff J -
OU* i
. POE -
c * .Bictei1a. --
OuiW.dmn
POE
ELm.W(CI.ndUv)i954 Bactena
SPA 5 D . δ ) 1NI - Ba i
EPAOatIbIca(V cap) liD Bactena
m e Arsenic
425
52,910
1WP
NA
$2,910
$474
c .$eO9 -
13I
D.mV. an
PTA -
RO
RO
POU
Cenbut
Central
POU
1
5684
519
5106
$809
5213
21,867 -
$115 I .- -
- $14Sr, ,l.r r
I
TAC
TAC
TAC
TAC
TAC
s )cickl4 I!! A$6flIoi +18 -
. 429Q
1- $38 r
. P4A
4 $41$ Trj
$ $fl0 +-
RO
POU
aa.Io .1a lvmspow iu Arsenic 78
$290
$38
NA
$415
$110
RO
POU,
scc u Arsenlc 78
?:4- J*C
: .TAC.l
AQZ74a
TAC 1li
, trAC .t
RO
POU
Arsenic 78
TAC
TAC
TAC
TAC
TAC
RO
POU
Arsenic -78
- . TAO
-AAC i.
TAC 4
I AO (
- P AQ
RO
POU
San Ysidro, NM 1986 Arsenic 1
$665
1WP
NA
5849
r
5224
RO
- . POU -
. MjnsCs Menic $22 - - -
r$19
NA -
$419 t 4
$1fl
RO
RO
Central
Central (Ctr
Emington, IL (esL) 1985 kseniclFiuodde 47
vA(aa iIsa MenlcdFbgodde * 87
$2,553
$14,263
1WP
IWP
NA
NA.
$3,328
Sf4 .624 - -
$391
1,718T
RO
POU
KlnΨPc nt .5ijfralk,VA. Isi s NienlclFluodde 1
-
51,065
519
-.
NA
. .
51,085
$286
R0
, POUi
NsenicFlusildι 47
$660 +
- . $68 ,vl -
%
. $74y5p 4
RO
POE
RiA CR0) 1987 ArseniclNitrate 25
TAC
TAC
TAC
$1,461
5238
RO
POE .!
-.4 .RlA(RO):1987. t ksθnlcltltrate - - . -12O
- -TAC
TAC:
; TAC
-. Sfj131 i ..,
$184.
RO
POE
RIA (RO) 1987 ArseniclNltrate 300
TAC
TAC
TAC
$1,498 $243
. .$1,333 Js, 4 $217 .*. . . .r 9
RO
-POE;
- .. RIA(ROX19S7-: AiaeniciNltjaf 86O. . - r
; TAC .
. -TAC .
RO
POE
EPA Oatabaa. (var cap) I S IS ArseniC/NItrate I
$3520
5112
$545
54,177
5680
RO
- POE ;
EPAStόd 1g8L- AtadnIcIN
Gumerman (US) 1983 Arsenic/Nitrate
Ebbeit (var. cap.)f 1985 Arsenic/NItrate - .. - . -
EPA Databaa.(vr cap) liii AisentclNutrate
5V840 l .
. $11,040. A -
$f,797f 4l
$370
$50
$65
$684
5175
RO
POLl
. $892
$19
$137
- -51,435..
. - ;$379m
RO
POU -
-
RO
POLl
$454
$19
$71
$545
$144
RO
- -pou:
- -- EPA Study 1988 . ArSenic/Nitrate Arf*
$a33 r - -
$121
$19ft . -
I t!7
$3o2-
RO
POE
Rsa$uu hcId,ply 1555 Nitrate 1
51,491
$300
NA
59881
51.608
RO-.
-, POU .
R t.a5SauS*isl NY:IQSS v Nitrate -i -i
S892t 4
110
NA
,- - $1 035
-st --c $273 - .V
Table 4 2 1 - Case Studies
Page 3
-------
Table 4.2.2: Capital Cost Data -- Vendor Survey
Type of Point of
Unit Application
Number of Purchase
Households (hh) Price ($Ihh)
Total Capital Amortized Capital
Cost (1997$Ihh) Costs (1997$Ihh!yr)
Source Contaminant
installatIon
Cost ($Ihh)
Contingency
Cost ($Ihh)
PA
POE
Vendor Two (Single tank)
Arsenic
150
$1 .545
$112
$249 -
$1,906
$310
PA
POE
Vendor Two (Dual tank)
ArsenIc
. 150
$2,195
$1 .12
$346 .
.
$2,653
$432
PA
POU
Vendor Three
ArsenIc
150
$110
$19
$19
$149
$39
PA
PA
POE.
POE
Vendor Two (Single tank)
Vendor Two (Dual tank)
. Nitrate
Nitrate
40
40
$2,195
$1 12.
$112
$249
$346
ji; 9o
$2,653
c s31o.
$432
AC
POU
Vendor One
Alach lor
92
$295
IWP
$44
$339
$89
AC
POU
Vendor One
Alathlor
92 -
$195
$19
.- 432
$246
$65
AC
POU
Vendor Two
Alachlor
92
.
$220
IWP
$33
$253
$67
AC
POU
VendorThree
- Alachior
: 92 .
$1 45
-. $19
$25
.$ 89
$60
AC
POE
Vendor One
Radon (1 .500)
100
$2,045
$225
$341
$2,611
$425
AC
POE '
Vendor Two
Radon (1,500)
c100
$1,695
r MfP
$254
Sf 949j -J ,
. - $31L 2
AC
POE
Vendor One
Radon (300)
18
$2,045
$225
$341
$2,611
$425
AC
POE
Vendorlio
.Radon(300)
. 18 .; ,
$1,695
r $ Jp
$264 .
i194E
AC
POE
Vendor One
Radon (300)
100
$2,045
$225
$341
$2611
$425
AC
POE.
VendorTwd
Radon (300)
100 - .
;$1,695 - ,
- FWP.- -
$254
$1,949
.. $317 : .
AC
POE
Vendor One
ICE
60
$2,045
$225
,
$341
$2,611
$425
AC
POE
VendorTwo
ICE
. 60
. $j695-
IWP -
$254
$19 49
. .
AC!DBA
POE
Vendor Two
Radon (1.500)
100
$2,095
IWP
$314
$2,409
$392
ACIDBA
POE
- VendoPFour .-
Rσddh(1.500)
:-. . 100 -
- $2,045
- 1WP-
. , $307 !
$2,352- -
. . 1383.- .1
ACIDBA
POE
Vendor Two
Radon (300)
16
$2,095
IWP
$314
$2 ,409
$392
ACIDBA
POE
Vendor Four
Radon (300)
18
$2,045
IWP
$307
$2,352
$383
ACIDBA
POE
Vendor Two
Radon (300)
100
$2,095
IWP
$314
$2,409
$392
ACIDBA
POE I
- VendorFoUr
R dor (30O).
-c fi00
. $2,Q4L ;
4k$2 352 , .
ACIDBA
POE
Vendor Two
TCE
60
$2,095
IWP
$314
$2,409
$392
AC/DBA
POE.
. Vendo Four - -
--ICE
: .60
-ό$ W
- -lW - .
$3Q i -:
r . .$2 ,352 .?
:$ Ψ3 .. -
AX
POE
Vendor Four
Nitrate
40
$1,545
IWP
$232
$1,777
$289
CX
POE
Vendorgng
Copper
-- 10
$.t 15 -
-1 25
$236
r . $1;806 r
Q4 -
CX
POE
Vendor Two
Copper
10
$1,645
$112
$264
$2,021
$329
pH
POE
Vendor Two
Copper
- c 10
$695
$112
$151 .
$1,158--..
$188
RO
POU
Vendor Four
Alachior
92
$745
IWP
$112
$857
$226
RO
POU
Vendor One
. Arsenic
15Q
-$a44. -
$i 5
$145
$1,114 -
? $294
RO
POLJ
Vendor Two
Arsenic
150
$495
$88
$87
$670
$177
RO
POU
Vendor Four
Arsenic
150
- $745.
IWP
$112
- $857 -
$226
RO
POU
VendorOne
Copper
10
$844
$125
$145
$1,114
-.- .
$294
RO
POU
Vendor Two
Copper
IQ $495 d
$88-
$87
$67
$17Z
RO
POU
Vendor Four
Copper
10
$745
IWP
$112
$857
$226
RO
POE ---.
Vendor Four
ArsenIc/Nitrate
- ; -40 --$12,545.
IWP - -
$1,882 -
$14,427 -
$2,348
RO
RO
POtJ
POIJ
VendorOne
Vendorlwo
Nitrate
Nitrate
40
40-
$844
$495 - . -.
$125
$88
$145
$87 -
$1,114
-, - $$ 7 O , ..
$294
... - $177,.
Table 4.2.2 - Vendor Survey
Page 1
-------
Table 4.2.3: Capital Cost Data -- Cadmus
Number of Purchase installation Contingency Total Capital Amortized Capital
Households (hh) Price ($Ihh) Cost ($Ihh) Cost ($Ihh) Cost (1997$Ihh) Costs (1997$Ihhlyr)
Typeo Point of
Unit Application
Source
Contaminant
-i
AA
POU
Cadmus
Arsenic
1
$239
$19
$39
$297
$78
AA
POU
Cadmus
Arsenic
10
$203
$13
, $32
$248
$66 ,
AA
POU
Cadmus
Arsenic
50
$185
$13
$30
,
$228
$60
M
POU
, Cadmus
ArSenic
100
iT
$13
$27
$207
S55
AC
POE
Cadmus
Aiachior
1
$2,554
$112
$400
$3,066
$499
AC
POE
Cadmus .
Atachior
- 10 -
$2,171
$75
., $337-
$2,582 -
- $420. --
AC
POE
Cadmus
Aiachior
50 ,
$1 979
$75
$308
$2,362
$384
AC
POE 7
Cadmus - ,
Aiachior
i 100
$1 788 /
$75
t$279
h $2 142 t
$349
AC
POE
Cadmus
Radon (1500)
1
$1 .682
$112
$269
$2,063
$336
AC
POE
Cadmόs -
Radon (1500)
-i 10
$15141
$75
$238
-I i T
$297 -
AC
POE
Cadmus
Radon (1500)
50
$1,346
$75
$213
$1,633
$266
AC
POE
Cadhius
Radτn(1500)
-; 100
$1 346 ;
$75 -
:, $213:
j,I .T
- $266 -
AC
POE
Cadmus
Radon (300)
1
$4,110
$112
$633
$4,855
$790
AC
POE
Cadmόs
Radτfl - 300)
, ,10 ,. .
.$3,699 , -
$75
- $568
$4;340- - -
- $798
AC
POE
Cadmus
Radon (300)
50
$3,288
$75
$504
$3,867
$629
AC
- POE
CadiflbS ,-- - - -
:-RaaOn(300)
- 100
$3288- $75 $5 4 t
:$3,867
:: $629. -, :
AC
POE
Cadmus
ICE
1
$2,554
$112
$400
$3,066
$499
AC
POE
CadmuS -)
: iCE
10 -,
$2,171 V
$75 - ,
j33
iT
- : $420 , 4
AC
POE
Cadmus
ICE
50
$1,979
$75
$308
$2,362
$384
POE
Cadmus
TCE
100
, $1,788,
$75
$279
$2,142
$349
AX
POE
Cadmus
Arsenic
1
$1,345
$112
$219
$1,676
$273
AX
POE ,
Cadmus :
Arsσflic
- 10 -
$ j43
$75,
$183.
- S1 ,401
$228 \ - , , -
AX
POE
Cadmus
Arsenic
50
$1,042
$75
$168
$1,285
$209
AX
PQE - .
-, ,Cadmu5 --
Arsenic
:-,. 100,.
$942 -
:-$75
$152
.S1 169 :
AC
POU
Cadmus
Alachior
1
$199
$19
$33
$251
$66
AC
POLL.
- Cΰdmus -- -
AIachtor
. -- i0 - $169 .
- $13
-$? 7
, ,. , -. $ 209
$55
AC
POU
Cadmus
Aiachior
50
$154
$13
$25
$192
$51
AC
PO ,U .
, - a diflu -, .,,
iachi r
- jQ0 L
$j ,39 1:
- , $13.
$23 -
$175 ,
AX
POU
Cadnius
Arsenic
1
$239
$19
$39
$297
$78
AX
POU
Cadmus ,
Arsenic
10
4203
$13
$32
$248
$66
AX
POU
Cadmus
Arsenic
50
$185
$13
$30
$228
$60
AX
POU
- Cadrnus ,.
- Arsenic -
100
$167.
$13
$27
$207 - -
$55.,
AX
POE
Cadmus
Nitrate
1
$1,345
$112
$219
$1,676
$273
AX
POE
Cadmus
Nitrate
10
$1,143
$75
$183
$1 4O1
$228 i
AX
POE
Cadmus
Nitrate
50
$1,042
$75
$168
$1,285
$209
AX
POE
Cadmus
Nitrate
- $942 ,-:
$75
$152 - -
- 1S1,169
AX
POU
Cadmus
Nitrate
1
$239
$19
$39
$297
$78
AX
POLL
Cadmus
- Nitrate
- - 30- - .
$203
$13
$32.
- $248,
$66-
AX
POU
Cadmus
Nitrate
50
$185
$13
$30
$228
$60
AX
POU -
- Cadmus
Nitrate
, 100 -.
$167 -
$13
$27 -
$2Q7
, $55 - -
Table 4 2.3 - Cadmus
Page 1
-------
Table 4.2.3: Capital Cost Data Cadmus
Total Capital Amortized Capital
Cost (1997$Ihh) Costs (1991$lhhlyr)
Typeo Pointof
Unit Application
Source Contaminant
Number of
Households (hh}
Purchase
Price ($!hh)
Installation
Cost ($Ihh)
Contingency
Cost ($Ihh)
CX
POE
Cadmus
Copper
1
$1,345
$112
$219
$1,676
$273
CX
POE -
admU8
Copper
4 rr 10 .
$1.143f
T$ 75 ;, t
$183
$1 4Ol,
$228
CX
POE
Cadmus
Copper
50
$1042
$75
$168
$1,285
$209
CX
POE
Cadmus
Copper
100
$942
$75
$152
$1,189
$190
CX
POU
Cadmus
Copper
1
$229
$19
$37
$286
$75
POU
Cadmus
.. Copper
o
$195.
$13
: $31
. $239
$53
CX
POU
Cadmus
Copper
50
$177
$13
$29
$219
$58
CX
POU
- Cadmus
Copper
100
$160 -
$13
: $26 -
$199
$53
DBA
POE
Cadmus
Radon (300)
1
$4,345
$112
$669
$5,126
$834
DBA
POE
Cadmus -
Radon (300)
- 10
$3.91 1
$ 5 -
$598
- $4,583
$746
DSA
POE
Cadmus
Radon (300)
50
$3,476
$75
$533
$4,083
$665
DBA
POE
Cadmus
Radon (300)
:. 100
$3,476 ,
$75,
$533,
$4,083..
$665
RO
POE
Cadmus
Arsenic
1
$8,445
$448
$5,336
$14,229
$2,316
RO
RO
POE
- Cadmus
a .rsenic -
10
$7,601
--$299 -
$4,740
7. $12,639
$2057
POE
Cadmus
Arsenic
50
$7,389
$299
$4,613
$12,301
$2002
RO
POE
-- Cadmus
Arsenic
100 -
$7,178: -
$299
$4,486
411,963 - -
$1,947
RO
POU
Cadmus
Arsenic
1
$730
$19
$112
$862
$227
RO
POU
Cadmus -
Arsenic -
- 10
$621
$13
- , $95
$728
$192
RO
POU
Cadmus
Arsenic
50
$566
$13
$87
$665
$176
RO
POU - ,
- Cadmus -
Arsenic -
- 100-
$511
$13 -P
$79
- $602
- -, $159
RO
POE
Cadmus
Nitrate
1
$6,445
$448
$5,336
$14,229
$2,316
- RO
POE
,.Cadmus- ,:..
Nitrate
10 - $7,601,
S299 ,
$4,740
- - $12,639 -
$2,057.-
RO
POE
Cadmus
Nitrate
50
$7,389
$299
$4,613
$12301
$2,002
RO
POE
Cadmus .
Nitrate
- 100,
$7,176
$299
$4,486
$11,963
$1,947
RO
POU
Cadmus
Nitrate
1
$730
$19
$112
$862
$227
RO
POU-
Cadmus
Nitrate
: . 10
$621
$13
$95
$728
- $192
RO
- POU
Cad,nus
Nitrate
50
$566
$13
$87
$665
$176
RO
POU
Cadmus
Nitrate
- 100
$511 -
$13
$79
$602
$159
Table 4 2 3 - Cadmus
Page 2
-------
Table 4.3.1: OperatIon and Maintenance Cost Data Case Studies
Type o Point of
Unit Application
Source
Number
Contaminant 1 Households (hh)
Annual
Maintenance
Coat ($Ihhlyr)
Annual
Sampling Cost
($Ihhlvr)
Annual
Administrative
Cost ($Ihhlvrl
Total Annual
O&M Coat
llSSTSlhhIvrl
AA
M
AA
M
M
M
POt )
POU
POU
f,POU
POt)
P0 1 4
FStS*S.M.EUIrS.OR 1113 Arsenic 4
Gumermah(US) 1983 AreSb 21 * tr
Gumennan (P1) 1983 Arsenic i 1
mundppSFinh. L1eesFkiciWeI rsenIc -r - -4
Papago Butte, AZ 1985 FlucndalArsenicl 1
h tg w. FkIOSlMS14 4 t?J-
$365
$103. -
$103
r $386
$369
* $463.-:
332 -
t $1or4 c
$108
$32
: -i4$32Z
$15 -
?
$15
$15
- . JS t -
- $411 -
$294
$294
;
$415
C
M
AP i ;
M
AC
POt)
POU t
POt)
- - CenPψ ,4-
You and I TP. AZ 1985 FlucddelAr.enici 1
4 PSxg.lL.nl9SS FIucddWAΰ Ψ4 -t ,AOflS(t
Bureau Junclion, IL 1985 Fiuorldal*nenici 40
Gooh 199q DB 4
GoodrIch 1990 DBCP 25
$413
$353,.t.;
$321
cI1NP :&
$32
$32flJZc
$31
2 NP) M
$15
4ηJ4q$f5j ( - )
$15
cfl4NP t ; .
$459
4 4$399P- 4
$366
tNP7
AC
Central
NP
NP
NP
NP
AC
, C nS
Goodr ltlSOj- ,i tBCPj 50 -4 ,j NP , ,j,
NP r- ;
1 N p, 4
AC
Central
Goodrich 1992 DBCP 10
NP
NP
NP
NP
CenPikW A 4 4 GdodrI& 1992 -L
, QB CP t4 ; 4$dtt: ! j
t(
t ,jfrNP c 4
4NJ4 At
r MP ; - ,
AC
Central
GoodrIch 1992
DBCP 20
NP
NP
NP
NP
AC
- CevtaI
Goodrich: 1992 - ;
. DBCL 25Xt
-i4P ZS
nt :N -ttr
:, : NP i(fl
* NPbtC
AC
Central
GoodrIch 1992
DBCP
50
NP
NP
NP
NP
AC
3 1 POE -
η GgodΨcft1990 1
?o ep +1
., 1 0-> , 7
- , $281 -
$2152,Lc?
Cr$15tc4r4
UC$511;? .t-
AC
POE
Goodrich 1990
DBCP
25
$281
$205
$15
$501
AC
- POE
aG0O n4j990E -
tC,.50f4flL
.fl59s-
-$1941 4
?tn$15 *t
$8R t t
AC
POE
Goodrich: 1992
DBCP
10
$281
$215
$15
$511
AC
- POE R
GoodflcP i99 U
-.%)DJCP!it 1 - 1Sf4 4 Y 7tC fl1s:
$215.j
c:$f5 )Y
)Ψ11
AC
POE
Goodrich 1992
DBCP
20
$281
$205
$15
$501
- AC
POE
Goodrich: 1992
DBCP
25
$281
$205
9W
$501
AC
POE
Goodrich 1992
DBCP
50
$258
$194
$15
$467
AC
- POE,
4Fresno C&-1990
± D8CP . -t -
- ioiWi
- $281 -
- $216 r:
& - $15 2 Z rirt$51t -
AC
AC
Central
Central-
GoodrIch 1990
T GoodrIch: 1990
DCP
10
NP
NP
NP
NP -
OCP .
25
NP
NP
NP -
- , NP
AC
Central
Goodrich. 1990
DCP
50
NP
NP
NP
NP -
SC
Cenfral-
- -.jGodddch:1992
P7!-
10- & t
-PcNP
NP
, NP.;t
NP ?
AC
Central
Goodrich 1992
OCP
15
NP
NP NP NP
arNP, k > 3-NP ic: ? NP
W I
kCιnfrIi.
: - -GoothIdg l 92 - %
, -kDCP .f
- :re$. yNP .
AC
Central
Goodnch 1992
OCP
25
NP
NP
NP
NP
AC--
CenUaE-
irGoOdMKi992
-9 P7 - -t6O Px
tttNP;
-fl -NP 3
-NP. t
-t4NP - .
AC
POE
Goodrich 1990
DCP 10
$281
$301
$15
$597
,.AC-
POEti
.4tGoodrldr 1990
t.kOCPt (25fic4a 4
- $291t.j.
$282 C r .
$,$ 18>
A 3 $57$
AC
POE
Goodrich 1990
DCP 50
$258
$263
$15
$536
- AC -
- ,iPOE-(
:Goodricft19$2:, -i .- - .DC!t : , :
-C$01-
$t4, ,f
$ 97 Th
AC
POE
Goodnch 1992 OCP 15
$281
$301
$15
$597
etAC &
OEj
? G dch:1992 -C DCp f- - : 2t) t3
VSIL p
. $282- --
$f5 ; )
-Ci$578 ,-:
AC
POE
Goodrich 1992 DCP 25
$281
$282
$15
$578
AC
POE- -
GoodrIcItl9OZ - - DCP -a I s50a
s $2S8-.
- - $263 ,,k,
C 1istC
-k $636
AC
POE
Florida (Type 1)1987 EDS
1
$890
$400
IWS
$1,616
AC
AC
POE
POE
Fiodda(typeii):1987 -EDB -
v.a. sin, O 10) 1555 Radon
, -
.- $890- -
$283
$400 -
$152
IWS -
$15
. -.$1,616
$449
AC
POE
Vflimafls(0A017) isas Radon
$283 -
$152
$15
$449
AC
POE
Various sin. (GAC 30) 1559 Radon
$283
$152
$15
$449
Table 4 3.1 . Case Studies
Page 1
-------
Table 4.3.1: Operatton and Maintenance Cost Data Case Studies
Annual Annual Annual Total Annual
Type o Point of Number of
Source Contaminant Houseliotds (hit) Maintenance Sampling Cost Administrative O&M Cost
Unit Application
Cost($/hh y ) ($/hhfyr Cost($/hh/yr) (199?$ThWyr)
AC
POU
Gumerman (US) 1983
SOCs
I
$52
$154
$15
$303
AC
POU
Gumemian (PU: 1983
SOCs .4.
- ,. -
$52
$184
- $15
: $303
AC
POU
Ebberi(var cap ) 1985
SOCs
$211
$121
$15
$347
AC
POU
EPA0 . (wv. c.pp ion
SOCj
1..
- $205
$121
$15
-. $340
AC
AC
POU
Central
EPA Study 1988
Lyldns(TPw1p pe) 1992
SOCs
TCE- -
1
150
$251
- NP
$121
- NP
$15
NP -
$386
- NP
AC
Central
Lykmna(SDw lpe) 1992
ICE
150
NP
NP
NP
NP
AC
Genital
LyitMe (wIo p a): 1992
TCE .
150 .;
- NP
- NP
- NP.
NP,
AC
Central
Putnum Cciaity. NY (Ut) iOn?
TCE
110
TAC
TAG
TAC
TAC
AC
Central
Goodrich: 1990
ICE
. 40
NP
- NP I
- . NP
NP
AC
Central
Goodllch. 1990
ICE
25
NP
NP
NP
NP
AC
Cen al
Goodrich: 1990
ICE.
.50 ,
NP
- - NP
NP,
NP.
AC
Central
Goodnch 1992
TCE
10
NP
NP
NP
NP
AC.
Central
Goodrich 1992
TCE:.
15 .
- NP,-:
NP.
, NP -
NP
AC
Central
Goodncli 1992
TCE
20
NP
NP
NP
NP
AC
Central
Goodrich: 1992
-, TCE .
25 . .
.NP- .
.
t : NP -.
AC
Central
GoodrIch 1992
TCE
50
NP
NP
NP
NP
AC
POE
Lyldns 1892 -
, .TCE-
I SO . -
$748
,; .5263
$ J5
(. 51:026
AC
POE
Putnam County. NY 1987
TCE
87
$320
$263
$15
$678
AC
POE
Goodrich 1990
ICE
10
$270
- $301
- $15
$585
AC
POE
Goodndr 1990
ICE
25
$270
$282
$15
$566
AC -
POE,--
GoodrIch: 1990 -
ICE -
- 50 ,
- -$253
- $263
- $15
$530
AC
POE
GoodrIch 1992
TCE
10
$292
$301
$15
$608
AC
POE.
Goodrich: 1692
- -. * 15
.- $292.-
- . $30f -
T 1r .
$508 -
AC
POE
Goo ch 1992
TCE
20
$292
$282
$15
$589
AC
POE
Gooddch:1992
ICE -
25 .
$292
$282
$15
$589
AC
POE
GoodrIch 1992
ICE
50
5288
$263
$15
$564
AC
POU
R0 a,T n II NJ INS
- ICE
- 12
- $201 -
-$195
- $15 . .
.. -$411
AC
POU
Silverdale. PA 1985
ICE
49
$208
$179
$15
$399
AC
POE
R.atssiftat4tff:1N5
VOOs/Radon
. - - 1 . - .
$264
- $238 -
$15
-, S517
AC
POE
EPAOaI as.( cap) IS IS
VOC.IRadon
I
$254
$238
$15
$517
AC
- POE
EPA Study 1988
VOCs/Radon
- I - -
. 5250
. $238
-- $15
.5503
AC/OBA
POE
Goodnch 1990
TCE
150
$488
$263
$15
$766
AC OBA
POE
- Eikhatt 1989
ICE. -
I
$646 .,
$301
$15
$962
Aeration
POE
EPADatabw(v cap) INS
VOCsiRadon
I
$264
$238
$15
$517
AX
POU
F Ai E.,..0R.IN3
4 . -
- $365
$32
$15
$41 1
AX
POE
EPA Databcaa (vat cap) ISIS
Arse
$264
$122
$15
$400
AX
POE-
EPASIudy:1988
Arse -
I
- - $250.
$122
$15.
- $386
AX
AX
POU
- POU
Gumerman (US) 1983
Gutnencafl (PL): 1953
Ars
Arse
$78
378
$124
$124
$15
. $ 15
$284
- $284
AX
POU
EPAD.t.baa.(v.r cap) ISIS
Arse c/N trat
1
$365
$33
$l5
$412
AX
POU
EPA SLIt
1988
1 -
I .
$411 -
$33
$15
$458
AX
Central
Lykina (IP wlpipe) I Nitrate
150
NP
NP
NP
NP
AX
Central
Lya(SD .)1 - Mlfrste-. -
150 ,- .
- NP
- - NP.
NP ..
NP
AX
Central
Lykins (wIo pipe) I Nitrate
150
NP
NP
NP
NP
AX
POE
Lyldns: 1992
Nitrete -
150 -
- - $369
$121
$15
$505
AX
POE
RNlItlaadtSaUthhcIdNY Nitrate
1
$327
$123
$15
$464
- AX
POU
RMsa ouWmi NY: Nltmte
I ,
$365
$34
$15
$413
AX
POU
CvWDIIIdNSVMSIdca Uranium
12
$312
$34
$15
$361
Table 431 - Case Studies Page 2
-------
Table 4.3.1: Operation and Maintenance Cost Data Case Studies
Type ol
Unit
Point of
Application
Source
Contaminant
Number of
Households (hN
Annual
Annual
Coat
Annual
Administrative
Total Annual
O&M Coat
Maintenance
Coat ($lhhlyr)
Sampling
($!hhlyrl
Cost ($ihhlyri
(1997$Thhlyr)
CX
POE
RIA 1987
Copper
25
-.
$ 15
CX
POE
R IA:.1987
Copper
120
-$208.,.
-
$15
$482
CX
POE
RIA 1987
Copper
300
3277
:
CX
POE
. ; -RIA 1987:-
COpr
$248,
$I22. . -
$313
CX
POE
EPAO abu. l v . ? p) 1919 Copper
1
3175
$124
$1$4
$15&.v .
- CX
POE
.EPAStridyl988 , , .Copper
- . 1 -- .-
$15
$254
CX
POU
umemian (US) 1983 Copper
I
$83
$124
$124.
$15
.1254
CX
POU
umerman (P1.): 1983 Copper
-
I
$63
$15
-
$374
CX
POU
EPA Dalabus (vi, cap) 1959 Copper
1
$325
$35
$35 -
$15
:5420
CX
POU,
EPA Study: 1988 Copper..
- $371
TAOMC
.-
TAOMC
.
TAOMC
- -TAOMC
TAOMC
5 TAOMC4.
TAOSRC
TAOMC
$47
$75
CX
Central
Beilevue, WI 1989 Radium
1.282
CX
POE
-Radlufli ;
1282
AOMC
TAOMC -
$208
CX.
POE
i . .- . .s cv s Radium
1.282
TAOMC
TAOMC
S455ft .-.
-c r
Central -
GlbsonCanyOs l.CA1992 . Badletta.,
.,, - 140 ., . -j
- TAOMC ,
,.-
TAOMC
$2078
oiis cv
ψ it. Iaui
POE
POE
Bacteria
ca * Bacteda$
140
- t40,i
TAOMC
, rAOMC
TAOMC
-$831
$429
DvW.duii
POE
Epiv.im.Y.1 (Cl and no 1594 Bacteria
42$
$295
$128;
-
.
n
POE
&AD*ab.N(ni,.cip ).1S$9 , Ba eda .,
,.
$15
$248
O.W. n
PTA
RO
RO
POU
Central
Central
- POU -
EPADatabinS(virciP)1U9 Bacteria
E 1 1th6it1987- . -TCE -
1
.. 21,67 - -
$195
.,1.TAOMC t
TAOMC -
-
-4TAOMC
TAC
.$5 - -
TAC
m r i i i ArsaiiI
1
TAC
1AC
:,TAC
4TAC -
c.an 91 1!S -Arsenic,
- .
TAC
TAC
TAC
RO
POU
sanvn o v oiMJ aN Arsenic
78
TAC
TAC. .-
- ,TAC , -.v
RO
POU
!.n ,Y ciaNicmu 1aN .A1 en1c-
78
TAG
TAC
TAG
TAC
RD
POU
-° Arsenic
78 -
-78 -i -
TAC. ,
t3C.
TAC
,-TAC .
RD
- POU
v.- Ar nh
.
$32
$15
.
$256
RD
POU
San Ysudro. NM 1986 Arsenic
I
$220
,$32: -
- , -$16 , ,
- . ,.$256 ,
RD
POU
re .M(.ejsi,.0R1SS9 Arsefllc
4 -
TAOMC
TAOMC
$59
RO
Central
Emungton. IL (eat) 1985 Azien)ciRuodde 47
TAOMC
Minimal
-. Minimal -
- Minimal
R0
entral(Ctr
* vAl.al1NS MsenldFkiadde 57 ,.
-
,.
$15
$425
RO
POU
.P . LSdVd5.V& ios ns.enlclFkjcdde I
$400
$287
$31 - -
$15
$333
- RO
POU
Esflinjthn IL: 1985 ArasniciFluedde
. 47
$121
.-
$15
$426
RO
POE
RIA CR0) 1987 ArseniclNitrate 25
.
&
$189
$120
$ 15
: . 13 71
RO
POE
RIA(R0) : 1987 ArsenlclNftrate 120,
RiA(RO) 1987 ArsenlclNitrate 300
RIA CR0): 1987 AnenIciNltmte - 880 t
-
.,
$15
$450
$252
5120
. $ 15
$415
RD
POE
$15
$793
RD
POE
RD
POE
EPADEabau (vat cap) 1959 ArseniclNitiate 1
EPA Study: 1988 Aisen ldNitrate
Gumernian (US) 1983 ArsemclNitrate
Ebbert (vat, cap): 1985 AtsenI Niti*te
$657
$122
-$727 - .
- $591 ,
$122 -
$15
$15
$378
-RO
- POE
$148
$221
$33
$15
$269
RD
POU
r
5152
533
515
$199
RO
POU
RD
R0
POU
POU ,
EPA Databava (vat cap) lea ArsenuclNitratP
EPA Study 1988 Atseniafl4ltn .
..-
$198
$33 -
$15
$246
$781
RD
--RD
POE
- POU
RIVWtIS.4ISOUVIIIaII.NY 1985 Nitrate
RlvSItlea 5OE51IIaid, NY 1955 NItrate
1
. -1 -
5643
- $152 - -
5123
$34 .
515
$15
$201 -
Table 43 1 - Case Studies
Page 3
-------
Table 4.3.2: OperatIon and Maintenance Cost Data -- Vendor Survey
Type 0
Unit
Point of
Application
Source
Contaminant
Number of
Households
(hh)
Annual
Annual
Annual
Maintena
Sampling
Admlnlstrativ
nce Cost
($Ihhlvr )
Cost
I$Ihhlvr)
e Cost
(Vhhlvr)
Totai Annual
O&M Cost
(1997$Ihhlyr)
AA
POE
Vendor Two (Single tank)
Arsenic
150
- $166 -
- $121 -
- $15 -
$301
M
POE
Vendor Two (Dual tank)
Arsenic -
- 150
$166-
$121
- $15..
$301
M
POU
Vendor Three
Arsenic
150
$121
$32
$15
$167
M
ROE
Vendor 7wo (Single tank)
r . :Nitrate -.
J 40.,?:
$241 -
$123
- s55et
S378
AA
POE
Vendor Two (Dual tank)
Nitrate
40
$241
$123
$15
$378
AC
POW -
VendorOnσ -
?Alachior
: : - 92 ,
$98
$121
$ 15 -
- $234- -
AC
POU
Vendor One
Alachlor
92
$77
$121
$15
$213
AC
POU
Vendor-Two
Alachlor -:
92
siis:
. , $121 .
Tiic..
-
$250 -
AC
POU
Vendor Three
Alachlor
92
$63
$121
$15
$199
! - AC
POE
VendbrOne; -
Radon(1 ,500). j0Q
5525Y
$159
$15 s ,.-
.$698
AC
POE
VendorTwo
Radon (1,500)
100
$250
$159
$15
$423
AC
POE
, -- VendarOn&
RaΨnrt3Oo
- $525:
.5159 -
. $15 .
seg yj
AC
POE
Vendoy Two
Radon (300)
16
$250
$159
$15
$423
AC
POE
Vendor One
Radon (300)
100 .3
$525 -
$159
Sf5
$698 i
AC
POE
Vendor Two
Radon (300)
100
$250
$159
$15
$423
AC
POE
Vendor One
TCET ,-
c ' 60
$525 -
$285
$15
- $624
AC
POE
Vendor Two
ICE
60
$250
$285
$15
$549
ACIDBA
POE
Vendor Two
Radon (1,500)
- - 100, -
$260
$159
$ 5 - ,
$423
AC/DBA
POE
Vendor Four
Radon (1500)
100
$300
$159
$15
$473
A/DBA
POE
, Vendor Twp
Radon (300).
18
, $250;
$1594
$15
$423
AC1DBA
POE
Vendor Four
Radon (300)
16
$300
$159
$15
$473
AC/DBA
POE
VendorTwo
REdofl(300)
- 100 c
i O
. $159
- s15J:i -
2( $423 ,
ACIOBA
POE
Vendor Four
Radon (300)
100
$300
$159
$15
$473
AC/DBA
POE
VendorTwo
TCE -
, 60
$250
$285
- $15
$549
ACIDBA
POE
Vendor Four
TCE
60
$300
$285
$15
$600
AX
POE
Vendor Four -
Nitrate .
40,1,,,
$185 -
, $123 , -
$15 -
-$302,
CX
POE
Vendor One
Copper
10
$165
$124
$15
$303
CX
pH
- POE
POE
VendorTwo
Vendor Two
Copper
.10 .
10
; $165; -
$91
-$124 .
$124
. $15
$15
.$303
$230
-. RO
-.POU -.
VendorFour.
-Nachior .
- ±92 --
$181Y
F $f21k
j - $15
$317
RO
POU
Vendor One
Arsenic
150
$123
$32
$15
$169
- ,- RO
POU -
. Vendor Two
Arsenic
150
$146
- $32
.- $15
$i92
RO
POU
Vendor Four
Arsenic
150
$181
$32
$15
$227
RO
POU
VendorOne
Cb per
90 ,
η $ ,123
$35
Sf5
$173
RO
POU
Vendor Two
Copper
10
$146
$35
$15
$195
-RO
POLl
VendorFour
- 10
$181
$35
$15
$231
RO
POE
Vendor Four
Arsenic/Nitrate
40
$825
$123
$15
$96.2
RO
POU -
Vendor One.
Nitrate -
40 .
$123
$34 -
$15 .
$172
RO
POU
Vendor Two
Nitrate
40
$146
$34
$ 15
$194
I
I
Table 4 32 - Vendor Survey
Page 1
-------
Table 4.3.3: OperatIon and Maintenance Cost Data -- Cadmus
Type of Point of
Unit Application
Source
Contaminant
Number of
Households
(hh)
Annual
Malntena
Annual
Sampling
Annual
Admlnlstrativ
nce Cost
Cost
e Cost
($Ihhlyr)
($Ihhlyr)
($Ihhlyr)
Total Annual
O&M Cost
(1997$lhhlyr)
AA
POU
Cadmus
Arsenic
1
$365
$32
$15
$411
AA
POU
. -Cαdmus
ArsenIc- .
- -iO .
.$312 t
$32
;S15 .
$358
M
POU
Cadmus
Arsenic
50
$286
$30
$15
$330
M
POU
Cadmus
Arsenic
100.
$260 -
$30
$15
$304
AC
.AC
POE
POE ;
Cadmus
Cddpws .,-
Alachlor
1
$304
$191
$15
$510
.acilo(-
-;. iQ .
$27Q: .: 191;
$J5 , , $476 .
AC
POE
Cadmus
Alachlor
50
$253
$168
$15
$435
AC
-POE
-. Cadmus
.Alachior-
:,.i00
-$235 ,. .
. $168
$15 ,
AC
POE
Cadmus
Radon (1500)
1
$305
$140
$15
$45.9
AC
OE <
, Cadm is Z
Radoh (1500)
.- 10
$282 ,
$140&
i$lS . i
f$436
AC
POE
Cadmus
Radon (1500)
50
$259
$127
$15
$400
AC
POE
Cadmus
Radon (1500)
r 100 b
$259
$l27 ,
$15;
$400
AC
POE
Cadmus
Radon (300)
1
$309
$140
$15
$463
AC -
POE
Cadmus
Radoq (300)
- 10 -
$285
- $140
$15 i
$ 439 I
AC
POE
Cadmus
Radon (300)
50
$262
$127
$15
$403
AC
OE
. . Cadmus
Radon (300);
100
$262
$127 re
$15 .
$4O3 i
AC
POE
Cadmus
TCE
I
$304
$266
$15
$585
AC
.. pqE
; 4 Cadmu
TCE i
$270 5 t
$266
$15
$550
AC
POE
. Cadmus
TCE
50
$253
$228
$15
$495
AC
POE
- .- Cadmόs
- .-TCE
, 100
$23&.,
$228
- $f5
, ,$478
AX
POE
Cadmus
Arsenic
1
$201
$86
$15
$301
AX
?OE
i ,.- -CddinUS .
Ai injd
iO -
- $l82 \
,$86 .
$ T
,- , $282,
AX
POE
Cadmus
Arsenic
50
$172
$84
$15
$271
AX
:. ,P,0E -
. -.,CadmUs--
- ;Arsefl ic :
- 100 .V -
$163 ;
$84.
.
. f $261 ,
AC
POU
Cadmus
Aiachlor
I
$205
$121
$15
$340
AC
PPU.
,Cadhi i9
.b- Jachto
.. 10 t
$176 ,.
$12 . -
- $15 -
$312
AC
POU
Cadmus
Alachlor
50
$162
$102
$15
$278
AC
. POU ..
Cadmus . .-
1AIachlor
: - -,
$148.
$102
115
- -$264 . -
AX
POLJ
Cadmus
Arsenic
I
$365
$32
$15
$411
AX
POU
Cadmus
Arsenlσ.
10
$312
$32
$15
,.$358
AX
POU
Cadmus
Arsenic
50
$286
$30
$15
$330
AX
.POU 4 -
- Cadmus -
-Arsenlc
.-- 10O-
$260:
30
$15 -
AX
POE
Cadmus
Nitrate
1
$327
$88
$15
$429
AX
POE-
- Ca dmus
Mitrate. .
tO
$289
$88
- -$ 5: - -
AX
POE
Cadmus
Nitrate
50
$270
$86
$15
$370
AX
POE
Cadmus
Nitrate
. 100
$251
$86
$15
$351
AX
POLJ
Cadmus
Nitrate
1
$365
$34
$15
$413
- AX
- POU
- Cadmus
Nitr8te:
10
8312
$34
- $15
$361
AX
POU
Cadmus
Nitrate
50
$286
$32
$15
$332
AX
- POU
- Cadmus -,
-re Nitrate -
tOO - .-
$260
$32
$15 --
- $306
Table 4 3.3- Cadmus
Page 1
-------
Table 4.3.3: OperatIon and Maintenance Cost Data -- Cadmus
Type of
Unit
Point of
Application
Source
Contaminant
Number of
Households
(hh)
Annual
Malntena
Annual
Sampling
Annual
Admlnlstratlv
nce Cost
Cost
a Cost
($IhhIvr
(Slhhlvr)
($Ihhlyr)
Total Annual
O&M Cost
(1997$Ihhlyr)
CX
CX
POE
POE
Cadmus
Cadmus
Copper
Copper
1
$175
$89
$89
$15
$15
$278
$263
10
5160
CX
I OE .
,Cadmus -
--:
,$87
$15 .
$253
CX
POE
Cadmus
Copper
100
5145
$87
515
$246
CX
PQU.
- CadmUs .
$k
4325
. $35 .
L $15 - -
$374 ,;
CX
POU
Cadmus
Copper
10
$278
$35
$15
$328
CX
- pou
cadrnus
Copper
CX
POU
Cadmus
Copper
100
5232
$33
$15
$279
DBA
-- POE
Cedmus
Radon(300)
: 1 i
4375
-$140
: $15
$529,.. -
DBA
POE
Cadmus
Radon (300)
10
5210
$140
$15
$364
DBA
POE.
Cadmus --
Radon(300)
i 50 -:-
15195
:$12 .
i$ifi . ,
- $335i? . ,J
DBA
POE
Cadmus
Radon (300)
100
$195
$127
$15
$336
RO
POE -
Cadmus -
. ,Arsenlc
. -1
.:$73,.
- $i21-
-.;:sis -
$838
RO
POE
Cadmus
Arsenic
10
$648
$121
$15
$783
RO
POE
Cadmus
Arsenic
50
$634
$119
$15 ,
$767- -
RO
POE
Cadmus -
Arsenic
100
$620
$119
$15
$754
RO
POU
Cadmus
rSen!c ,
1 -
$220
,- $32
, $15
$266 ;
RO
POU
Cadmus
Arsenic
10
$189
$32
$15
$235
RO.
POU
Cadmus
- Ar enlc
, SO A
,.$173
: $30
c- $15 - -
5218k
RO
POIJ
Cadmus
Arsenic
100
$158
$30
$15
$203
RO
POE
Cadmus
Nitrate
I .
- $528
$123
$15
$666
RO
POE
Cadmus
Nitrate
10
$490
$123
$15
$628
RO
POE
Cαdmus -
- 14ittdte .
50
$481 .
$121 ;:
15, -
$616 :
RO
POE
Cadmus
Nitrate
100
$471
$121
$15
$607
,RO
POU
Cadmus .
- Nitrate,-
1.
$3
. $15
- $201 --.
RO
POU
Cadmus
Nitrate
10
$131
$34
$15
$180
- O.
, ,POU
,Cadmus -
- Nitrate .
.- 50,
$121
$32 -
15 :
$1.
RO
POU
Cadmus
Nitrate
100
$111
$32
$15
$157
Table 4 3 3 - Cadmus
Page 2
-------
Cost Evaluation ofPOU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Before maintenance staff can service a unit, they must have all necessary replacement
parts and they must travel to the household in which the unit is installed. As with device
installation, it was assumed that daily preparation (preparation of all necessary parts and fittings,
completion of appropriate paperwork, etc.) and travel to and from the community would require
2 hours. Therefore, maintenance personnel would actually spend only 6 hours of her day
servicing treatment devices given the assumption of an eight hour workday (see section 4.1).
Given the assumptions presented in the preceding paragraph, three POE units can be
serviced per employee per day while a single employee could service eight POU devices per day.
The costs and estimated effective life of various replacement parts for POU devices are
presented in Table 4.3.1.1. A substantial margin of safety is included in the minimum effective
life determined for these components. It was assumed that all parts would be available from
local vendors. Therefore, no shipping and handling costs were included in this cost analysis.
Table 4.3.1.1: Cost Data for POU Replacement Components (1997$)
Component
.
Contaminant
Cost
Minimum
.
Effective Life
AA Cartridge
Arsenic
$80
275 gallons
GAC Cartridge
Alachior
$40
275 gallons
AX Cartridge
ArsenicfNitrate
$80
275 gallons
CX Cartridge
Copper
$70
275 gallons
RO Membrane
Arsenic
$135
1,100 gallons
RO Membrane
Nitrate
$135
2,200 gallons
Particulate filter (5-am)
NA
$15
550 gallons
GAC pre- or post-filter
NA
$20
550 gallons
For the purposes of this cost analysis, it was determined that all POU units would be
charged for replacement of a particulate pre-filter and the appropriate cartridge (i.e., an AA
cartridge for a POU AA device). The cost of replacing GAC pre- and post-filters were included
in the maintenance costs for all POU RO devices.
Cost estimates for replacement components and media used in POE devices are presented
in Table 4.3.1.2.
128
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Table 4.3.1.2. Cost Data for POE Replacement Components (1997$)
Media/Component
Contaminant
Cost per
Cubic Foot
Minimum
Effective Life
AA (cubic foot)
Arsenic
$65
33,500 gallons
GAC (cubic foot)
Alachlor, ICE
$60
85,000 gallons
GAC (cubic foot)
Radon (300)
$60
Not Applicable
GAC (cubic foot)
Radon (1,500)
$60
Not Applicable
AX Salt
Arsenic
$126
110,000 gallons
AX Salt
Nitrate
$126
55,000 gallons
CX Salt
Copper
$100
110,000 gallons
UV Bulb
Microbiologicals
$150
110,000 gallons
All prices were derived from the data provided by the vendor survey (see section 3), the
information provided by the contacted OEMs, and contractor expertise. Volume discounts
identical to those provided for the purchase of treatment devices were incorporated into the cost
of replacement parts and media.
Although UV units draw electrical power, no reliable data on their yearly energy
requirements were available. However, the additional electrical requirement is expected to be
small and would be dwarfed by the electrical demands of other household appliances (e.g., water
heater or dishwasher). Therefore, electrical costs were ignored in this cost analysis.
Disposal costs for spent media should be incorporated in any cost analysis to reflect the
true cost of a particular technology to the water system and the water systems customers.
Disposal costs for POU devices are negligible due to their small size (and therefore small
contribution to the total waste stream) and to their low level of contamination. However, due to
their greater size, the installation and use of POE units may result in significant disposal costs.
For example, the waste brines from POE RO units may not be accepted by the local wastewater
treatment plant. While the brine could be stored in a tank and discharged at a slow rate (via a
bleed valve), this would result in an additional cost for the water system. In addition, as noted in
sections 1.3.4 and 1.3.5, the use of IX units may face legal restrictions in certain areas. Spent
GAC contaminated with radon or the products of radons decay may require disposed as low-
level radioactive waste. This would greatly increase the costs of this treatment alternative.
While central treatment plants face even more daunting waste disposal issues, sufficient
information was not available to accurately determine the disposal costs for central treatment
plants of various sizes. Therefore, to prevent unfair bias in the cost analysis, all disposal costs
were ignored.
129
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
4.3.2 Sampling and Lab Analysis
While monitoring is essential to maintaining POU and POE systems, sampling and lab
analyses are expensive. Indeed, lab fees can drive the implementation costs of a POU or POE
treatment strategy, especially because these units are relatively inexpensive.
Water systems were assumed to test water from each households treatment device
annually to ensure that all customers are provided with water that meets the NPDWRs. It was
not necessary to include the costs of more frequent monitoring, since all replacement schedules
used in this cost analysis include built in safety margins of at least 100 percent as detailed in
section 4.3.1.
As discussed in section 1.4, bacterial colonization of GAC filters has been documented.
Therefore, a fecal coliform analysis will also be performed on samples taken from all treatment
devices that use GAC technology. Since EPA will continue to regulate the water provided by
the water system, it was assumed that no additional analyses would be required of the water
systems that implement POU or POE treatment strategies. Nonetheless, water systems would
still be subject to the sampling requirements of the Standard Monitoring Framework (e.g., they
would still need to monitor contaminant concentrations at the point-of-entry to the distribution
system). The sampling would ensure that the water systems could continue to use POE or POU
strategies to meet the NPDWRs.
To provide an extra measure of safety, this cost analysis assumed that sampling would be
done by trained water system personnel. It also assumed that sampling would occur at the same
time as device maintenance in order to reduce travel costs. Since maintenance occurs at least
twice a year for all POE and POU treatment units (see section 4.3.1), no separate trips for
sampling were determined to be necessary. All travel time would be covered under maintenance
costs. Nonetheless, 1 extra hour of preparation (e.g., for labeling sample bottles, sample drop-
- off, etc.) was incorporated in the cost analysis for each workday required to sample the service
community to ensure that appropriate protocols would be followed.
Since the sampling process is relatively simple, consisting of filling a small vial with
water from a tap that dispenses treated water, it was assumed that sampling (e.g., running water
for two minutes, taking samples, etc.) would require only 15 minutes for each POU unit. Thus,
servicing and sampling for a POU unit would require 1 hour per unit (45 minutes for
maintenance plus 15 minutes for sampling). Sampling was assumed to require 30 minutes for
each POE unit. Thus, servicing and sampling a POE unit would require 2.5 hours (2 hours for
maintenance plus 30 minutes for sampling). Therefore, since 5 hours woulηl be available for
sampling and maintenance per 8-hour workday (3 hours for preparatiorf and travel), five POU
units and two POE units could be sampled and serviced each workday by a single employee.
130
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
The fees assigned to lab analyses for this cost analysis are presented in Table 4.3.2.1.
Table 4.3.2.1. Cost Data for Lab Analyses (1997$)
Contaminant
Cost of Analysis
Source
Arsenic
$8.50
Independent Laboratories
Copper
$12.00
1997 Lead and Copper Rule
Nitrate
$11 00
1997 Drinking Water Program
Information Request (DW ICR)
Radon
S46i0
Independent Laboratories
Alachior
$98.00
DW ICR
Trichioroethylenc
$173.00
DW ICR
Total Colifonn
$16.00
DW ICR
All costs taken from the Lead and Copper Rule and the 1997 Drinking Water Program
Information Request were corroborated by contacted laboratories. Most of these laboratories
publicized the availability of discounts for large orders. Therefore, it was assumed that a 10-
percent discount would be provided to a water system for 20 to 49 sample analyses and that a 20-
percent discount would be provided for 50 or more sample analyses. Since several of the
contacted laboratories advertised free pick-up and delivery via messenger service, it was assumed
that the water system would not incur any shipping or handling charges. Since all of the devices
for which costs were developed were designed with ample capacity and since provisions had
been made for frequent maintenance and cartridge/filter/membrane replacement, it was assumed
that no contaminant analyses would return positive (necessitating additional sampling).
4.3.3 Administrative Costs
Effective administration is necessary for a water system that relies on POU or POE
technology, because each unit must be maintained in working order. Administrative costs for
office supplies, record keeping, and other administrative activities were reported in several case
studies (see sections 2.1.2, 2.2.2, and 2.6.1). When adjusted for inflation using the PPI, these
costs amounted to $14.13 per year for each household equipped with a POU and POE unit. As
noted in section 4.1, it was assumed that all administrative duties would be undertaken by a
minimally skilled worker (wage rate of $14.50 per hour). Therefore, it was determined that a
water system employee would need to spend 1 hour per household per year to coordinate device
sampling and maintenance with homeowners and vendors. Central treatment plants were not
charged administrative costs since these were assumed to be incorporated in the cost of
131
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
maintaining the plant. Therefore the administrative portion of O&M costs was determined to be
zero for all central treatment projects.
4.4 Total Costs
Given the assumptions presented in section 4.1, a household would use 100 gallons of
water per day for all purposes (e.g., drinking, washing, cleaning, etc.). By dividing the total
annual household cost of the POU or POE treatment option by the volume of water used by each
household for all purposes, it was possible to calculate a per-gallon-used cost for implementation
of a POE or POU strategy. Since POE units treatall household water, cost per-gallon-used for
these devices is equivalent to cost-per-gallon treated. However, POU units treat only water used
for drinking and cooking purposes (1 percent of total water usage). Therefore, the cost-per-
gallon treated for these devices will be significantly (about 100 times) greater than the cost-per-
gallon used. The examination of cost-per-gallon used (hereafter referred to as costs) permits
comparison of the costs associated with different alternatives for achieving compliance with the
SDWA. Tables 4.4.1,4.4.2,4.4.3, and 4.4.4 present the total costs associated with the provision
of various POE and POU treatment devices.
The results of the cost analysis are presented in the following sections. As noted in
section 4.1, the final stage of the cost development process was the verification of the Cadmus
cost estimates. The concentration of several contaminants could be successfully reduced in
household water by the application of more than one technology (e.g., arsenic concentrations may
be reduced by AA, AX, or RO).
The costs provided by the case studies and the surveyed vendors are presented along with
the Cadmus cost curve (and the associated cost equation) for comparison. As previously
detailed, case study and vendor cost data were adjusted to ensure the comparison of comparable
systems (e.g., the cost of a water meter was added to the purchase price of those systems that did
not come equipped with one) in comparable terms (i.e., 1997 dollars). However, when
component replacement schedules were provided by a vendor or in a case study, these nominal
schedules were used in calculating total costs even when they differed with the replacement
regime developed for this cost analysis.
After the cost curves for the POU application of each appropriate treatment technology
are presented individually (with case study and vendor data), the implementation costs for all
potential POU treatment strategies are compared. This permits the determination of the least-
cost POU treatment technology for the contaminant of concern.
132
-------
Table 4.4.1: CapItal and Operation and Maintenance Cost Data Case Studies
Type o
Unit
Point of
Application
Source
P .A
P .A
Contaminant
U
Fsese Aa. t,ηmre, OR ion Aisarijc
: _______ . -
U
POU
Uumerman (FL) 1963
P0u
Purchase
Pttc.
($lhh)
Number of
Households
(hh)
4
Instalistlon Contingency
Cost ($Thh) Cost ($flih)
Tlsaalsats Fan .. AZ. IN FbotdsfAisani
Arsenic
POU
Papago Butt.. AZ. 198b
YouandilP,AZ 1981.
PNIceisblag. IL 1985
a-
ou
POU
POU
AA
POU
Bureau Junction. IL 198b
Central
Goochdt 1990
AC
Central
Goodrich 1990
NA
8 5338 519
F otdWAna
1
uos
$19
. .
S614
519
5330 5120 $70 5712 5188 5103 SlOG
1 5345 519
53Q;. , sssi. ;i 5106 -
NA
NA
NA
Total Capital
Cost
(1597$Ihh)
Amoitized Annual Annual
Capital Costs Maintenance SamplIng Cos
(1987$Ihhlyr) CoSt($Ihhlyr) ($lthlyr)
Annual
Administr.tlve
Cost ($lhhiyr)
Total Annual
O&M Cost
(1897$Ihhlyr
Total Annual
Costs
(1987$lhhlyr)
Cost p.r 1,000
Gallons Trsst.d
(IW$IKgel)
Cost per 1.000
Gallons Used
(1897$lKgal)
$357 ,-
5520
5364
Central
$137
515
1388
ciooanth i . .
10 5401 Sf3 NA $414 $396 $353 - 533
40
$416
$13
NA
5429
5113
!0
N!
NP..
JN . ,
. - NP
5483
AC
(jOO ictT 1990 061 W 50 . NP NP. NP NP:.
NP .
5411
t$294
5294
S495
Central
Goodrich 1992
DBCP
10
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
Central
- GoodrIch. 1992 /
. DBCP
15 -
NP
- NP
NP.-
NP ,
- NP .
,, , NP
596 5413 532
U OCP 25 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
$506
$427
$482
UUCP 20 NP NP
5590
5440
AC
Central
Goodrich 1992
DBCP
50
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
POE
Goodrich 1990
DBCP
10
CPKGT
CPICGT
C9KGT
, CPKGT
,, 03T
NP
$1,154
5440
NP
AG
Central
(l000ndr.1992 061W 25 NP NP NP . . NP 14P - . HP
- - r ip
5939 1
NP
AC
GooGich 1590
D8CP SQ CSKGT COICOT CoICGT , CoICGT
NP
NP
$15
$415
$552 $82
$670 . P 8
5555 5276
$509 -. J i$2.332 -
5460 51.642
$1 ,638. 4_$18 ; , ..I
5786 58
5468 $5
$1,507 516
5504
, - $16
$529 . -
5459
. $398
$366
. 5812,. ,.
$15
$15
515
$507
.i - $4.44 -
5438
r-.S14.87 . .:r J
NP.
NP
NP
NP
5718
NP .
NP
.54.27.. .
NP
NP
$1376
NP
PUL
(ioocriat 1990 091W CPKGT CpKGT C KGT CPKGT CPKGT 5281 5205 515 5501 51.032
a
NP
,NP
NP
51085
. - $11
I
NP NP 5864 59
NP NP NP 5432 54 5395
$213 ,
- $ 15 F
$5ffs
51,043
:, 55 ir,
- assi.
$789
-,
i! W12 Vi I
POE Goodrich 1992
DBCP
10
52,188
IWP
CpKGT V
V CpKGT
CpKGT
5281
5215
5 15
5511
51341
514 -
51225
POE GoodrIch. 1992 -
- OBCP
15
52188
IWP
CpICOT
CpKOT
- . Cp ICOT
. 5281
5215
$15
,55f
51.341
. - $14,
. 512,25
POE Goodrich 1992
DBCP
20
52.188
IWP
CpKGT
CpICGT
CpKGT
CpiCOT
CpICGT
CPICGT
CpKGT
CPCOT
CpICGT
$281
5205
515
5501
51,331
$14
512 16
A POE Goochalr 1992 .
DBCP
25
52188
MP
IWP
CpICOT
NP
CpiCGT
5281
$205
5 15
- $501
$1,331 -,
ti $i4 r-
i; 7513.16 ,.
POE Goodrich 1992
OBCP
50
52.188
CpKGT
$258
5 194
$15
$467
$1,298
513
51185
POE Fresno.Ck1990..
AC Central Goodrich 1990
DBCP
-.10
CpiCGT
..CpiCOT
- 5281 ,,
. $215
$15
551$. -
$894 .
. ,5817i.
517 51604
55 5499
NP
NP
- NP
NP
- NP
NP
NP
NP
NP -
.
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
51,756
- $882
OCP
10
NP
Central GoodrIch, 1990 .
DCP -
25
NP
lIP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
5547
AC Central Goodrich 1990
DCP
50
NP
NP
NP
AC Central Ooodilth 1992
DCP
10
NP,
NP
NP
- NP
- NP
NP
NP
NP
$S,$42
$1 6 , , .
Sf4.08
51023
$820,
5696
Central Goodrich 1992
DCP
15
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP .
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
51,120
512
Central Goodrich 1992
DCP
20
25
NP
NP
NP -
NP
,. NP
NP
NP V
NP
NP
$898 ,
: $9 ,..
AC Central Goodrich 1992
OCP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
5762
58
. OCP
50
10
25
NP
NP
NP
-. NP
NP,
NP
- NP
NP
NP
$486,.
L, $(rS4.SS 4
POE Goodrich 1990
POE Goodilalt 1990 -
DCP
DCP
CpKGT
CpICGT
CpICGT
CpICOT
CpKGT
CpICGT
Cpl(GT
CpKGT
CpICGT
CpICOT2
$281
- 5281
$301
5282
515
- Sf5
5597
5578
51,493
51474
$9
- -$9 -, -
51363
51248 FI
AC POE Goodrich 1990
DCP
50
CpKGT
CpKGT
CpKGT
CpKGT
CpKGT
5258
5263
515
5536
51.432
59
51308
A POE 000drlalt 1992 .
DCP
10
52188
PAP
CpICOT
CpCGT
ICGT.
- , 5381
$301
515
- 5567
51,581 r
Sf8 W ,
4 5t4$i %
POE Goodrich 1992
DCP
15
$2188
IWP
CpKGT
CpKGT
CpICGT
5281
5301
515
5597
$1,561
$16
$1426
POE Goodrich 1992
DCP
20
52188
PAP
CpKGT
CpICOT
CpKGT
I - 5281
$282-
$15
5578.
$1.542 ..
t($1I t ,$14 ,04 f
AC POE Goodrich 1992
DCP
25
52,188
IWP
CpKGT
CpKGT
CpKGT
5281
5282
$15
5578
51.542
516
51409
:] !° - GoodrIch. 1992 ,
,OCP
$6_
53.188
PAP
CpKOT
CpICGT -
CpKGT
$258
$263
515
5536
51501
. 516
.
PO
AC
Florida (Type I) 1987
POE
AC
POE
Florida (Type II) 1987
EDB
EDO
Vwrea5tatn(OACtO) US
Vests 5 (OAC ilk i5 51
Radon
Sl.
51.060
5828
51.077
5116
NA
51.193
- 5894
NA 51,252 5204 5890 $400 51.615 51.820 517 51662
$283
V..sastei(GAC3OJ US
Radon 51,350 $116
NA
51.466
5239
$283
5152
515
5449
5688
56
5628
NA
$ 13 16
$ 2 14
.. 8890
8400
rws
51,616
51,830 -
. $17 . .η
, $16J1i- 4.
NA
$944
$154
$283
5152
515
5449
5603
56
5550
$152
$15
5449
5643
56
S5.88 . .
Teble44l CaseStud,es
Page 1
-------
Table 4.4.1: Capital and Operation and Maintenance Cost Data Case Studies
Typ of Point of
Unit Application
Source
Contaminant
AC
POU
Gumerman (US)
enan(PL
POU
bbett(var Cap) 1985 SOC. 1 5260
AC
POIJ
EPAO bs.i(t NP. 1 ..
SOC:.
.1
5204
AC
POU
EPA Study 1988
SOCS
1
5378
LvNfla 1W wmarrisuz
AC
Central
TCE
Number of
Households
(hh)
Purchase
Price
InstallatIon
Cost ($Ihh)
CcntlflgeflCy
Cost ($Ihh)
Total Capital
Cost
(1197$lhh)
Amo.llzed Annual
Capital Costs Maintenance
(1 597$Ihhlyr) Cost ($lhhlyr)
Annual
Sampilng Co.
Ψlhhjyr)
Annual
AdministratIve
Coat (SlhliIyr)
Total Annual
O&M Cost
(1$$7$lhhlyr)
Total Annual
Costs
(1957$Thhlyr)
central
P , In.m Cowity NY (SILl las ?
15 0
$40
$40
$411
.!! !
.!!
AC
AC
Central
L;kins(SDw ipe) 1992
ICE
150
NP
NP
NP
AC
Central
LyIth (wlo p s) 1992
. YCE
150 ,
.
.
-. ,NP , ,
Central
cjoo ia !! .
$33 .. ,
$95
5818
$321
$571
5103
NP
GOo* 1990
AC
Central
GOOdrIch 1992
AC
C.ntrai
GoodrithIgY2
NP. -
Central
Goodrich 1990
TCE
25
NP
510
5211
.1. NP
TCE
5151
NP
I
$68 :.
5205- . ,
$121
50
5121
110 TAC TAC TAC TAC
NI
NP
5251
NP
AC
Central Goodrich 1992 TCE 20
I. NP
$15
Cost p .r 1.000
Gallons Treated
( l O ST 5 8Cgai)
1121
._ ..S15
S303
$468 -
NP
5411
NP
-. NP
AC
Central
Goodrich 1992
TCE
50
&
L s1992 , .
1 TCE , -
150 .
ICt 10 NP NP NP NP
$347
TCE 15 NP .NP ,NP
AC
Central rn -,4 1
1992 - -TCE
2$ - . NP NF
- NP
NP
$432
TAC
$376
Cost per 1,000
Gallons Used
(1U7$IICgsl)
7r
$394
i 1 4N -
$3
s e.
5386
$537
NP
NP NP NP NP $704
TAC
NP
AC
POE Putnsm County. NV 1957 TCE 67 5823 5494
NP
AC
NP
I.
. Z401 t
- N P .NP , NP , , NP. . -. $t84G -I
5490
POE
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP NP NP NP
NP
TAC TAC $1 ,576
NP
NP
NP
$490
NP
Goodrich 1992
AC
POE
Goodrich 1990
, TCE. .
4. -10
-
C PKGT
C9KGT
CPKGT
Ii
AC
POE
Goodrich 1990
TCE
25
CpKGT
CpKGT
CpICGT
CpKGT
AC
POE
GoodrIth1990 r. .
: TCE
Cpl09T- -;CpKGT -
CplCG . -.
52,188
,$2,188 i .
IWP
CpKGT
- .C CGT ,
CpKGT
09T -
AC
AC
POE
POE
Goodrich 1992
Goodrich 1992,y
TCE
C4
10
15
; ,
NP- S 5328 . , ; . - -8Z5f7 - - .$It0 -
54 r
57
: -$2 , i -
5843
$f;85 g
$14
$1440
TCE
!!
!
$798
NP
NP NP NP .-.NP. 51.092
- . NP
NP NP NP NP
20
NP NP 51.514
NP
NP
AC
POU
SilverdalePA 1985
TCE
49
!
NsdwaeSeua ioN ,NY .IS$f
VsIRado
1 . - -
..
- -1 . y - :. , . .
$8
$729
! - S5 r
S4439 ,*
NP
; 3s
AC
POE
(fOOdrith 1992
TCE
50 52,188 1WP CpKGT
AC
POU
As awsyTei ,1IJ,IIs
TCE
12
518
$263
POE EPA priSm. (cur I INS VOCSIRSdOfl 1
$871
___
CpKGT
CpKGT
CpKGT
515
$1383
52101 53Qf
- $15 4 $585
$282
Vw -1
pcpico r -:
: -GPI09t-;
. PkGT44
$292:
$270
$292
$292
$317
$289
$940
5678
$15
5195
55
5115
$947
5566
5112
- ,u5263
-- -i&- . .
;; .
$301
$15
$608
: $39t$ --
. $f5 .
.Aw$509 , .
5 3 (1 51151
NA
$10
$282
1286
$158
)1.JZZ
52 ,8f 7
$15
5400
5865
51208
5201
$1 ,360
58
.l515r
5459 1284
5589
5196
5221
515
$15
$206
$179
515
5399
51,481
S 1,462
St4 i
$1,438
5264
$238
5564
51353
$411
45 MtI St$ .$3t
$ 15 $1336
4 S15 4
513 13
-I -;.
5.517
5738
-
?
S4,8S f4
$434
S 8 . 9 t1 r?
17
AC POE
EPASIUdy.lgea,:
,
150
.- I .
1
$2,554
$123
$531
53,185 - .
$518, ,
- $250
. S23I -
- 515
5503 -,
51,021 c
$1,818
- $l.724
5904
j;$9 ) -
$19
.S18& ,.
18
$1 )$6 ,32 - (
51860
55,623
NP
$843
$6,466
51,052
$488
5263
- $ 3 01
5238
$3 2:
515
$15
Sf5
-, 515 .
$766
ACaDBA POE
Goodrich 1990
TCE
-$4,685 -
IWP .
NA -
54 .885 ;
$762 -
$648 -
5264
.v -5365 .
$264
ACIflSI POE
EIldwt 1089. .
- TCE
- - $962.
- - $f5,74 A
$826
Aeration POE
£PAOalusu.lvur cup) INS
VOCslRsdon
51,950
5112
5311
52.381
5388
5517
AX POU
PNN(I OR Ian. ,1AtsenI6
4_-
$350 .
$19
ritA
$499 ,
4132
$411
-$542
AX POE
EPADIIaS.uulvur curl INS AtseniclNitrate
51,158
5112
5190
51,457
$237
5122
515
5400
5837
56
5582
Ax POE
EPASbid i988
ArsenIc Nitratr
,
$218
$212
$476
52 855
-1465-. $250
5122
-515
-$386
$851
;r.$8. :$7 ,77 -
AX POU
Gumerman(US) 1983
ArseniclNdrate
$350
$40
$60
$616
$163
$78
$124
515
5284
$447
$408
$40
Ax POU
Gtilhienosn(PL)1983
Arsen al58rate
$400
$120
$
$822
, 52f7
$T5
$124 -
$15
5284
. $501
5458 -
$ 58
AX POU
EPADuIuSIm(mr cup) 19$? AISenicjNdIsIS
$318
.
$19
$51
$387
$102
5365
533
515
$412
$514
,
$470
$470
AX POU
EPAStUdy 1988
Ars0nICIN aI4
.
$288
597
517 .
$481
$12.2
-. $411
$33
5f5 .
545$
$550
- $829 -
-
$529
AX Central
Lykins(TPwipipe) 1992
Nitrate
150
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
$355
,
$4
$324
AX Central
SDw )1992
Nitrate
150 ;
, NP-
-NP
NP,
,NP,,
-$P--
.NP
. NP
- MI
. NP
$663
$7-
AX Central
Lyluns (wlo pipe) 1992
Nitrate
150
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
$177
52
$162
AX POE
Lykms 1992-
. Nitrats
150
$2,188
$75
$329
$3,603 - .
S .24 - ,
- - $369 .
$121
- $15
$505
$928 -,
- $1O
AX POE
Rwumuwseciuiau NY INS
Nitrate
1
52,325
$175
NA
$2,553
$415
$327
.
$123
$15
$464
5880
58
$603
AX POU
RseImdmeenuu NYiSeS
. ,Nitrate .
I .
$308
$80
NA
$ 0 -
$108
- -4365 -
$34
$15
$413
$521
$4T6, , ,
AX POU
Cu dNMIwiIIN3
Urannan
12
$125
$13
NA
5184
549
5312
534
$15
$361
. -..
$409
5374
5374
$674
Table 4 4 1 Case Studies
Pe e 2
-------
Table 4.4.1: CapItal and Operation and Maintenance Cost Data Case Studies
CX POE RIA 1987
CX POE EPADI1Sa(ns, c s) 1080 Copper
POE FPAnh..1.f 1988
CX
POU Gumerman
(US) 1983 Copper
CA PUU L13nennan ( PLJ 1 copper
CX POU EPAOSI .bu.Mi cap) 10801 Copper
CX POU EPA Studtr 1088 I Cooper
CX
centrar
Bellevue, WI 1989
CX
P
waono e.-
CX POE Ik. a sr -s at l I Radnim
no pou lanyWI, I .ap08 ,. I Arsenic
RO POU an.anan I Arsenic
RO POE
RO POE EPA DWIbus. (C, nip) 180.1 ArseniclNitratel
POE
EPAS
POU
Gumermi
KU PUU
WIO I N50fll INIff 1 l
RO POU EPA D.tiSai.( s , nip) INEIAI$encCjNdreieI
RO POU EPA Study 1988
POE
RCthSndSan
POU
RVanIl.idI8nii
V 101
5250 540
$310 $120
5318 519
1.282 21.107 $27
5584 519
$115 .1WP
Total Capital
Cost
)1997$lhh)
*mo.llzed
Capital Costa
(1I97$lhhlyr)
Annual
Maintenance
Cost ($lhhlyr)
Annual
Sampling Cost
($lhhlyr)
Annual
Admlnittrative
Cost ($Ihhlyr)
5 122
=
TIC 51.174 5191 5277
51.04 5 51 )0 t248 . 2122
5 1 .457 52 5124
5125
5181 5124
585 - S678 5179. - .263 - $124
551 5387 1W2
$61 - . .5538
$170 11.512 1248
3 . 7U _!! 5268
5105 . 5829 S f35 . 5225 5128
5106 5809 5213 5195 539
NA - i145 : $17
ND. . 5415 $110 - TAC TAC
NA 5415 5110
1A( IAC TAG
53,520 5112
58.838 1384
5454 519 271
5833 112!
TAC
TAC
NA 5849 5224 5220
HA
5419
5111
$220
NA
NA
5391
51.718 . Minimal
51.085 5286 $400
5238 5232 5121
515
- 51,131. 51
84- 5189 - 5120
TAC 51.496 5243 $252 1120 115
TAC . 11 333 7 59 31)
! 5 54,71! 5850 5122
- 51. 40 511,040 51 .797 5591 5122 -
3J ! 9 3227
SIP! 51,145 5292
NA . 51.035 rj - 534
.4444 1814 58
- f! 4 -
5389 5355
5405-
5374 5476 5435
5193 52
WO
5208 5454 54
5455
31,840
Sf7 t
TA η
. 4 1 Qf
TAC S19f. ..S7f .
5217
5266 5376 j 5344
$727
5647 5591
Type 0 Point 01
Sourc.
Unit Appiicatlon
Number of
Contaminant Household.
(blip
CX
POE
Rik 1981
Copper
25
CX
POE
RIk198?
Copper
. 120
installation Contingency
Puce Cost ($lhh) Cost ($lhh)
l.aI
CA POE - copper , 160 TCG TIC
Ca Pper - 30U ICC TIC
5274
51.155 5112 5190
TIC -.
5309
5&167
5212
!!-
5123
545
5122
5472
- 1 .283
Total Annual
0&M Coat
(1997$fllhlyr)
Total Annual
Costa
(1S91$lhhlyr)
Cost per 1,000
Gallons Trnt.d
(1997$IiCgaI)
Cost per 1,000
Galions Used
(1997$lKgal)
515
515
5356 548
M51 -.
TAC TAC TAC TAC 5118
$63 $124
o...nni. POE EpO .ann WI (C l and IIV) 18041 Bacteria 425 52 .910 iWP
0d 01 POU EPAOaIib iui(yav can P i . 14 Bactena
515
cn
Cenlral
Cibson Canyon. CA. 1092
BacterIa
140
$11,000
PAP
NA
$11,789
$1,385
o,. ,*.i.
POE
n nan cas o -a an
Bactena
140
52.657
$75
NA
$2,922
5476
o* .
POE
anan cap ,.*.
Bcterla
140
$3529
- 575
NP.
53 ,856
- 5828;
can- POE EPA Databan. hat 5 tosl BacterIa 7 291)9 1112
5573
5323
.JlJ
I,
515
$15
515
515
57
$5 .
S d
5773
. .57.05 .* SI
5656
A
Central
Elthert 1987 TCE
2188i
RO
Central
n v.at. ansn n- Arsenic
I
POU
.van.an an&a.uie Arsenic
78
$550
I
NA
535. __ . $16
TAOMC
TAOMC
TAOMC
3303
$420
5355
R0 POU - ..an.m Arsenic_ - 9 ( TAC TAC
78 5290 $36
5542 -.. M93
POU IatVde. 86P sal©at .tIN 5 Arsenic
78
!
-
78
. .5q 3 ,
5435
RU - - - !OU San Yslaro, NM 1966 I Arsenic I 1 5665 IWP
168
POU
Fabn-. AAls. nil Arsenic I 4
5292
TAC
TAC TAC TAC
TAC TAC
5201 S
no Central Emtngton.IL(est . ) 19851A,asnlclfluiofldel 47 22.553
$47
32 3 84
5429
5495
51 77
5415
5 16.81
52332
I t O P00 n .P ,nd. ...n.a VA luSslAJOefUrIFluOrideI 1 51,065 519
523
TAG
$1459
$13..
.
4
RO POU Emuigto. iL 1985 IA,wlcffkIcddeI 47 5860 $88
POE
RiA(RO) 1987 ArseniclNdrate 25
FOE
R 1A(R0) 1987 s$zoencdNitrate 120
5903 58
TAG , -TAC TAG.
TAG
TAG
---55..
TAC
TAG
TAG 5536
3524
TAC
TAG
TAG
NIP . (KU) 1561 IRraenIcINutrateI 300 TAC TAC
KU POE RIA 040) 1967 lArssnlcdNdrateI 860 TAG TAC
- TAG
TAG
5582-.-
- S5
. .5458 -
5482
5422
5422
:
$33 .
., ,$ 0j
5199
I 589 .
581
I.. S020V c ) I
5490
S2.20 . -5 1
5217
51 99
TAC
TAOMC
TAC
313
IAU
EbOell(Ver cap)
TAOMC TAOMC
Minimal Mktenel
181
AMU
3255 5490 5447 54 47
373
559 5450
5425
ra 5750 , i i
$287
$31 $1 3
$333
$530
S1,ll5
.$4.84 -. 1
V.18051 Nitrate I
5892 $19 5137 51.435
1983 1
$370 550
565
5664
5175
$148
$124
515
527
Sill
5426
- 5892. 5110
5470
5430
3744
5649
515
54
300 NA
59.881
51,608
5643
5323
515
- 53? 1 5373
- -
. 15.31.. 1
5152
5582
533
533
5198
: 55 5495
3415 - 5441- 54 . S4.71 I
$33
5793 51.473 513 51345
515
£15
.52.524
523 -
$2305
.
5553
5505
-
$248 1348
5199 5343 5313 5313
52.389
522
521 82
5474
I--. $433 ..,
54.33r/ . .
39W
Table 4 4 1 - Case Studies
Page 3
-------
Table 4.4.1: Capital and Operation and Maintenance Cost Data Case Studies
Assumotiana D P I
POU Canwanaol
Contaminant
Cost
Expected UI.
Number of people per household
Water consumed per person per day (gpdfpej)
Total waler use per person per day (gpdlpot)
Water consumed per hoasehold per year (gpyfldi)
Total waler use per household per year (gpylhh)
linen per wuebday
Eirpednd eftedhve Its 01 P00 (yearn)
Espoded eltsdws Ifs of POE (yearn)
Enpocod oOndks Of. of Central Plant (yeats)
Mwhnaiy u*Jaed wage rats (Stir)
SIfted wage rate (Situ)
lnntaaation trawl and preparation Inns (IoWa 7 )
P00 hiotafatron (htuiuna)
POE hiotaltatton (Inland)
Mahitenancs travel and preparation tIne (Inantay)
Pot) mawtenanco (itmluno)
POE maIntenance (lualuno)
Sanctig frequency (aampleathhlpr)
Sampang travel and praparatlon tIns (hralday)
POl l aanrptrg tIns (hralaanigta)
POE aanrplng lIsts (lttwuwple)
Sawptig and mahitananca cootdhiatlon lIne (Iuathttly,)
Amoithnatlun rats
ContIngency yea
AACariltdge
Alasn i s
$5000
3$
GACCaltrhlgs
Aladtlor
$4000
3$
Ax Canhiga
Amenlyotat.
I so 00
CX Cartridge
Copper
$7000
3$
P0 Manttane
Assent
$13500
150
P0 Mantans
Narita
$13500
300
PanhoiatataFlasr
Any
$1100
75
OACpwer4anr
Any
12000
75
POE Compaaaj
ContamInant
Cost
Trasreit capaitty
Year
LanaI
3D
to
taco
1.0950
100.6000
900
$0
100
200
$1450
$2500
200
too
300
200
075
200
100
too
025
060
100
100%
160%
1017 hEX
M
GAC
GAC
GAC
A x
AX
Cx
l iv Os lo
nsa a
90000
50000
$0000
$12500
$12500
$10000
$15000
003
06 3
1002
1035
t o n
1126
1164
ti ll
ties
1201
1224
1250
1265
NA
nraanc
Radon X)
Radon ( 1500)
Aiaant
Narita
Copper
MIanhso i ogCa i o
Solo Omomald Rates
wjtvmt
52.500
solviot
tvlot
109.500
54.750
109500
109600
1953
19 55
1957
1905
1059
1090
1991
1992
1093
1994
1996
1099
1997
w a -tOSS
DPI tAb
u Iii
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
090
000
1000
Year
UnIt Deacitytlon
Nuanbaret Unlta DIscount
P00
tO 150%
50 225%
tOO . 300%
PCEtrwtCOwRn)
10 160%
50 225 %
tOO . 300%
POERO
10 100%
50 125%
100. 150%
POEfurRn
iS 100%
50. 200%
AS laicloed smiles hicoryorate aoaanrpalonn to pansit comparison wlh Cadnws cost coreas
A l narnpterg t, n tale ytaca at oarrw tIne an matnlsnanco
Etedrtcat cools ass nored m tIn cataataaon of total annual coats
Ku
Acronym MeanIng . . ,.. - Msanlog
1997 inK
isa
1957
1960
959
1090
t I ll
1992
1993
1994
1995
1009
1097
pre-1905
as
lot I
1057
1102
1134
1100
its.
ill.
1260
1259
1500
132 5
NA
000
000
000
000
000
900
000
000
000
000
000
000
100
hA
Ax
CpXGT
CX
D OA
D OCP
DCP
ED O
GAO
MP
NA
Adtvatad Ahoilia
AnIon Eadiwrge
iaos T
Cation Exdiange
Dulfuts OubMe Asratton
Dubronocfrtoropropana
D sch lnrop sopans
Ethy l du t oon t ha
Ad h vatod Carbon
Irtohadad w Il l Purthaos
Not Appitabla
NP
POE
PO l l
P m
Rn
P G
TAC
TAOMC
TCE
Uv
Mc I Pro-Med
Pt*dcfEmiy
Poke d-Un
Prnthucsr Price tndan
tiadoi
awrao Osmosis
Inutalsd I I total Annual Coal
fldalad hi Total Addal OEM Coat
row itoonet t ry i sne
Itrasletal Dtsndsdbn
L Fsoa tab Cocoon Rates Convaraton Fandona
ContamInant
Pa.
AneW
$550
Copper
$1200
NEiata
$1100
Radon
$4050-
Aladitor
$9500
DOCPIEDS
$0700
TCEIDCP
517300
Total Cohlons
$1500
I of $snplaa DIscount
201049 10%
S0 20%
Gaaon LIar 3755
GraI l Maigraun 04790
le O Units I Diacourot
19
TobI. 4 4 1 - Case Studsos
Page 4
-------
Table 4.4.2: CapItal and Operation and Maintenance Cost Data Vendor Survey
Type o Point of
Unit Application
Source
Contaminant
Number of Purch*ss
Households
(hh)
Prlc
( 5 1 1th)
installation
Cost ($Ihh)
Contingency
Cost ($Ihh)
Total Capital
Cost
11991$Ihh
Amo 1lz.d Annua Annual
CapItal Costa Malntsnanc Sampling
(1597$IhhJyr) Cost ($IhhIyr) Cosi ($Ihhly,)
Annual
Administrative
Cost ($IhhIyr)
Total Annual
O&M Cost
(1997$lhhlyr)
Total Annual
Costa
(1997$IhlVyv)
Coat p.r 1.000
Gallons Tr.atd
(1997$IICg.l)
Cost p.r 1.000
Gallons Used
(1O97$IKgal)
AA POE
VendorTwa(Sin .tank)
A, enlc
150
$1545
3112
$249
51.906
3310
5166
$121
$15
$301
$611
3558
5558
Vend Two(Duaitank
ArsenIc
150
$2195
$112
*46 .
3Z 153 .
$432 -
$f 6 ,
$12 1
$15 .
$301
$733
S&69
$669
M POu
Vendorlhree
Arsenic
150
5110
$19
519
$149
52.653
$33L-
$39
3121
532
315
$167
3206
3188
3188
M POE
dorTwo(SlngtembI
NIfrele
40.
$1,545
$112
$249-
i $34t-4-.
ψ *l23r
S 5
- $378
S8U
U.29
- -.,r .SO.$9 .1
$740
3432
$241
$123
$15
$378
3810
3740
AA POE
VendcrTwo(Dualtanlcl
N lral.
40
52.195
$112
$346
$59 ? -:
$98 -
S12 1-
$58,.
$234 - .
$323
$295 ,
AC POLl
VendorOne
Althior
92
$295
Y IP
-$44 .
AC POU
VendorOne
Alathior
92
5195
319
$32
5246
$65
$77
$121
$15
$213
$278
$254
$254
AC POU
VendofTWO
: Alaclilo(
-, .92
1220
lIP .
$33; ,
5253 ;.
567
- r .. .Sfl5- .
) ci121t,i
-*15
. ,$250
-r..$2C9 -
$ip z
AC POU
VendorThree
eJachior
92
$145
$19
$25 $189 $50
S341 . - 12,6tf : 1425
$63
$121
315
5199
3249
5227
$227
AC POE
VendorOne
Radcn(1,500,
.100
52.045-
.5225
--$525. .-
.$159. .-- 311
5698-. -,
. $1,123, ,
$10.25
.$10.25 , I
AC POE
VendorTwo
Radon(l,500)
100
51.695
1WP
$254
$1,949
$31 7
3250
3159
515
$423
$740
$676
$676
AC POE
VendorOne ,
Redon(300 )
16-
$2,045-
. $225 -.
$34V,t
,$2,111 - .
$425- ,t
, $525
,3 1 5 9
. *15-
5698
3M23 -
- $10.25 : .
S I O.25 (&Xd
AC POE
Vendor Two
Radon (300)
18
81.695
flW
$254
31.949
5317
$250
5159
315
$423
5740
5676
5676
AC POE
VendorOn.
Radon(30l
- -. 100
$2,045-
$225
$341 -r
12,61f
3415 .
$525
. $ 169
$15 .
$698 -
$1,123, .
.310.23 /
-$1 25 , t
AC POE
Vendor Two
Radon (300)
100
$1,695
IYIP
5254
11.949
$317
$250
$159
$15
3423
5740
$676
$676
AC POE
VendorOne
- - TCE
.50
$2,045
$225 .
$341 . - -
.1Z 171.:
S525.
-$285. .
--*15. -
$824,
$1 ,249 ,
$U.41 - ,j
$1t41s ,f 1
AC POE
VenctorTwo
TCE
60
11.695
IYIP
$254
11,949
5317
3250
3285
$15
$549
$866
$791
$7.91
C II ) POE
VendoiTwo - -
Radcn(1 ,500j
. -100
52,095-
- ?
33$4 a
L $2 409 r
-S392 -
. S250, -
- - $159 -.
$15 - ,;
$423.
# r18$
$744, , - 52 4f 4j
ACID POE
VendorFour
i adon(1,500
100
32045
IWP
3307
52,352
$383
3300
3159
515
5473
$858
$781
$781
ClD8A POE
VendcrTwo
Radon(300)
16
12095
-MP
*314
i-$2 409
- .$U24 --
-. - $2
$159;.t -
. 315
$423
$615.
PW $j44
ACID POE
VendorFour
Radon(300)
16
$2045
IWP
$307
52 352
$383
$300
$159
515
5473
5856
5781
3781
CID9A POE
VendofTwo
Radon(300)
100
$2095
IWP
$314 .
-$2.409:- -
$S92
- . $250 . c
$159
$15- - -
3423.
: $$35 jr-
ST.44 :
4- $ 4 9l
ACID POE
Vendor Four
Radon (300)
100
52045
IWP
3307
52.352
5383
3300
$159
515
3473
$856
. $94f&
$982
. 6S59$ t
3597
4 $532 ki
$78l $781
$897 . $897
$$4O -I$ $&40$81
3545 $545
q s ,_8j $537 (
AC1D POE
Vendorlwo
-TCE
60
$2,095
-MP
. S314.:i, 4dj , 4$252, - -
1250
$285 --
- $15 - -
$15
,. , $15.
$15
*15 .
. $549
$600
S302 ,
3303
T $303
ACID POE
Vendor Four -
TCE
60
$2,045
1WP
$307
$Z352
3383
*300
5285
- AX POE
VendorFoor
Ntfrate
- 40
81,545
iWP - -
$232,
$1, 7 37
$269.
$l85 ..
.- Sf23 .-
CX POE
CX POE
VendorOne
Vendor Two
Copper
Copper
10
10
81.345
$1,645
8225
$112
3238
$264
$160 1
$2021
$294
$326
8165
- *165
3124
$124.
pH POE
VendorTwo
Copper
10
1895
5112
5151
51 ,159
3188
$91
$124
$15
3230
5418
3382 3382
$499?,c ,p
RO POU
Vendor Four
AJad Icr
92 -
$745
1WP
$112
:, $857 ,
$221
$181
$121
$15
5357
- 55 .1-
RO POU
VendorOne
Arsenic
150
8844
$125
$145
$1,114
$294
3123
$32
$15
$169
$463
3423
3423
RO POLl
VendorTwo
.Areenlc
- 150
$405
- $
S87 , T-
-.: $170 i . -$177 ,
- $146.
-. ,S32-;
. *15
- , $192 -
*388
- - ,- -2 S&38 1
no ou
RO POU
Vendor Four
VendorOne
Arsenic
- Copper
150
.10 -
$745
$544
IWP
$125
$112
- $ 145 -
$857
:$l-n -
5226
P4
3181
$12 3 - -
$32
-$35
515
$15
3227
$ 73--- -
5453
$467 -t
$372
4457
5414
M28
5340
r4 - $4S c
5414
$5 2
3340
no ou
Ve do rTwo
Copper
10
5495
$88
387
5670
3177
5146
835
315
3195
δφ POLl
VendorFour
Copper
10 -
$245
IYIP
*112
i 5857 - $226
$181
335
515
*235 -
Po
venoor I-u i
AiseniclNitra I t
40
SI 2.545
iV 31.882
814.427
32 .348
RO
POLl
VendorOne
Nifrate
- 40
$844
$125
$145- . $f i7V $294: - $123,
334
*15--
*172
$44.--,---$425_t- 1
RO
POu
Vendor Two
Nltrale
40
5495
388
587
3670
5177
5146
334
315
3194
$371
$339
1
5825
£123
515
$962
33.310
33023
530 23
Table 4 4 2 - Vendor Survey
Page I
-------
Table 4.4.2: Capital and Operation and Maintenance Cost Dab --Vendor Survey
Asnons
Reolacament Pat
PPI. FIna l dsnaid lees enerov
Number of people pet beisetrele
Weler consumed per person pet dey (gpdlper)
total meter uue per person per dey (gpdlper)
POti Ceeeeenee?
Centaninent
Cost
-
Eepeoted Life
AACertrblge
AiseeIc
$1000
0
GACCertMge
AJetelor
54000
0
AX Ceititige
AsseelclNlrete
05000
0
CXCauiidge
Copper
$7000
0
ROblentrene
Aisenlc
513500
0
RO Membrene
NOise
$13500
0
Pertioutete Flier
Any
$1500
0
O t t pre.4eel Met
My
52000
0
Pot Coeepenet
Contaminant
Cost
TraeetCepeulp
Year
Loot
1557 ISXX
AA
OAC
GAC
GAC
AX
AX
CX
tnoa
30
10
1000
10550
Total meter use per kousehu b l per er (gpylhlr) 1055000
Hours per morkdey 000
Erpeded elledrse l Ie of POt) (yen) 50
Eupeded etfedise tie of POE (yeem) 100
Eupeded effete Ifs 01 Ceutrel Ple,4 (yeem) 200
Merenuup uk med mope rele (Vlrr) $1410
Skied wege rile (Silo) ueoo
Inulefallen Iresel end preperelion lone flusmey) 200
POU iistefulmn (hie n mn i) 100
POE Inoleflellue (hrsluns) 300
Memtenence Intel cud preparetlon line (Irrwdey) 200
POU meirtenance (IrreAuri) 0 75
POE mairrenence fluslen i) 200
San fng frequency feen ealhJl r) 100
Sempeng Irevel end preperetlon litre (lrrxfdey) 100
POU uemplurg lire (irwuemple) 02$
PO E uumpthrg line (IIISfuaIIηIe) 0 50
Sempthro mid melnlenence 000ldlnefwn line (hrnllllvyi) 1 00
Amett lzetmurele 100%
Cordirgency lee 150%
Al feinted cranes irco ,.uuide esaunrpllons to penn cenqramten meh Cadrrsma cost ar Ises
Al nen*rig I Sa lake pIece ml senm line en meblenenc.
E ledrlcal cods ste qnared Er the celoitulan of luteI menu s coils
Acronym Meanino Acronnnr Metnine
resent
Radon (300)
Reden (1,500)
fluent
trite
Copper
Mlobb i slngta l e
ens w
$0000
$0000
55000
$12000
$12000
$10000
$11000
en 3
553
1002
1035
1052
1125
1154
1171
v Ise
1201
1224
1250
1255
NA
sees
ieee
1507
tale
see
1550
lee
iees
1593
1554
ass
ie e e
issy
pm-lees
001 IRk
000
050
000
000
000
000
050
000
000
000
000
000
000
1000
Yen
l an a Oeecdpllee
Nranier of d Ma Discerns
POd
10 150%
30 355%
000 550%
POi(imceOmffn)
10 150%
50 205%
100 . 300%
POERO
10 100%
50 025%
lO B . 150%
POEtrRn
10 100%
50. 200%
eilVlU!
52.500
CIVIBI
ClViBl
500500
54.750
109.500
109.500
IS Ofacaunt Rates
eofaernples I
1557 len
ieee
$57
tees
less
i 5 50
teei
1552
toes
ises
tees
ie e e
ise
eae
sea
101 1
1057
1102
1134
1155
lies
115$
1220
1205
1300
132$
P t A
000
000
000
Ox
000
005
000
000
000
000
005
010
lee
AA
AX
CpICOT
CX
DBA
D$cP
DCP
EDO
CAC
n ap
NA
Lab Fees
AdmitS Aimnmra
Anion Eirdrenge
mneecuuon I amos frees
Celen Exotrenee
Diffuse Bubble Aarslmn
Dtronicdrlornprepene
Didduropropane
Ethyt ibree l lda
Adrynled C uban
In d iided wilt Purdue
Nat Appiceble
NP
ios
P ol l
P it
Rn
RO
TAC
TAOMC
iCE
U ,
Not Provided
Pokst of-E ,ery
Poed .ot-Une
Producer PrIce Index
Radon
Reverse Osrnous
irdided ii total Annual Coil
Induded it total Aurelel OW Coot
Tiidrtoroe l lry iene
Llireslelel ObirtedJon
Centanrlnent
Fee
Anemic
$550
Copper
$1200
Ndrete
$11 00
Radon
$4550
Madder
$5500
O0CPIE
05700
tCEIDCP
$17300
tctelCoifcrm
tteoo
201040 I 10%
50. 20%
Conversion Faders
Oiler tier 3755
Gnu Mdigrem 54 lea
lef UnIts DIscount
10. 33%
Table 442- Vendor Survey
Pegs 2
-------
Table 4.4.3: CapItal and Operation and Maintenance Cost Data Cadmus
Type o Point of
Unit Application
Source
Contaminant
Number of Purchase
Households Price
(hh) ($lhh)
installation Contingency
Cost ($Ihh) Cost ($Ihh)
Total Capital
Cost
(19918 1 1th)
Amortized
Capital Coats
(1997$flthlyr)
Annual Annual
Maintenance Sampling Cos
Cost ($Ihhlyr) ($11ihlyr)
Annual
Administrative
Cost ($lhhlyr)
Total Annual
O&M Cost
(199?$lhhlyr)
Total Annual
Costs
(1997$Ihhlyr)
Cost per 1,000
Gallons Treated
(1997$IKgal)
Cost per 1.000
Gallons Used
(1997$flCgal)
U POU
Cadmua
Arsenic
1
$239
$19
$39
$297
$78
$365
$32
$15
5411
5489
$447
5447
U POU
Cadmus
ArsenIc
10
$203
$13
$32
$248
$66
$312
$32_
$15
$358
$424
$387
$381
U POU
Cadmus
Arsenic
50
$185
$13
$30
$228
$60
$286
$30
$15
5330
5390
$356
$356
U POU
Cadmus
Arsenic
100
$167
$13
$27
... $207
$55
$260
$30
$15
$304
$359
$328
$328 ,.
$921
. : S&lIt .
$749
AC POE
Cadrnus
Aladtlor
1
82.554
$112
$400
53.066
5499
5304
5191
515
5510
$1009
$9
POE
Cedmus
Aladt lor
10
82.171
$75
$337
52.582
5420
$270
$191
$15
$475
*896
.. $8
AC POE
Cadmus
Alaclilor
50
81,979
$75
$308
$2362
$384
$253
$168
$ 15
$435
$820
$7
AC POE
Cadmus
Aladulor
100
$1,788
$75
$279
52.142
$349
,. $235
. $168
$15
$418
$767
. 57 - -
s7.do
AC POE
Cadmus
Radon(1500)
- 1
81.682
$112
$269
52.063
$336
$305
$140
$15
1459
$794
$7
$726
AC POE
Cedmus
Radcn(1500)
10
$1,514
$75
*238
$1,827
$297 -
$282
$140
*15
1436
5733
57
54.89
AC POE
Cadmus
Radon(1500)
50
81.348
575
$213
51,633
5266
5259
$127
$15
$400
$666
56
$808
AC POE
Cadmus
Radon (150l
100
$1,348
$75
$213
$1,633
$261
$259
$127
$15
$400
$666
$8.
$6.08
AC POE
Cadmus
Radon (300)
1
$4,110
$112
$633
$4,855
$790
$309
$140
.
$15
$463
$1253
$ 11
$1144
AC POE
Cadmua. -
Radcn(300)
10
83,699
$75
*568
54340
.8706
S285
$140
815 -
8439
$1,144
. - SilO,
. $10.46 I
AC POE
Cadmus
Radon (300)
50
$3,288
$75
5504
53,867
$629
5262
. $262
$304
$270
$127
$15
$403.
$1033
$9
$943
AC POE
Cedmus
Radon (300)
100-
83.288
$75
$504
83,867-
$629 , . -
$127
$18
$403
- $1,033
$9 . , ,
$943 .,
AC POE
Cadmus
TCE
I
$2,554
$112
$400
53,066
5499
$266
$15
5585
$1,084
510
5990
AC POE
Cadmus
Cadmus
Cadmus
Cadmus
TCE
10
12,171
$75
*337
82.582 ,
-1420
$286
- $15
$550.
$971..
$9
$4.88 1
AC POE
TCE
50
81.979
$75
5308
52,362
$384
$253
$228
$15
1495
$880
$8
$803
AC POE
- TCE
100 -,
$1,788-
$75
$279
I $2,142
.5349
-$235
$228
$15-
$478
$827
S8 ,i .
$7 55l
AX POE
ArsenIc
1
81,345
$112
$219
$1,676
$273
$201
$86
$15
$301
$573
$5
$524
AX POE
Cadmus
Arsenic
10
$1,143
$75
$183
$1,401
. $228
$182
$88
$18.
8282
- $510M
-r $5
It
AX POE
Cadmus
Arsenic
50
$1,042
$75
$168
$1,285
$209
$172
.
584
515
5271
5480
,
54
5438
AX POE
Cadmus
Arsenic
100
$942
-$75
$152
.81,169
$190
$163
$84
$15 -
$261
$451 -
14 - S4.12 -
AC POU
AC POU
Cadmus
Madulor
I
$199
$19
$33
$251
$66
$205
$121
$15
$340
$406
$371
$371
Cadmus
Aiethlor
10
$169
$27
$209
$55
$176
$121
$15
$312
$367
$335
- - - $335
AC POU
Cadmus
Cadmua
Cadmus
Cedmus
Aladulor
50
$154
$13
$25
-
$192
$51
$162
$102
$15
$278
$329
$300
$300
Alachior
100
- $139 ,
$13
823 -
$175
148
S148 -
- $102
$15
$284
$310
$283
. -$2.83
AC POU
AX POU
Arsemc
I
$239
$19
$39
$297
$78
$365
532
515
5411
5489
5447
$447
Arsenic
10
8203
$13
- $32
$248
$68
$312
- $32
$15
$358
$424
$381
i POU
AX POU
Cadmus
Arsenic
50
$185
$13
$30
$228
$60
5286
$30
515
5330
5390
V
$356
$356
AX POU
Cadmus
Arsenic
- 100
$167
$13
$27
, $207
$55 .
$260,.-
- $30
$15
$304
$359
$328
AX POE
Cedmus
Nitrate
I
$1,345
$112
$219
$1,876
$273
$327
$88
$15
$429
$702
,
$6
$641
POE
Cadnius
NIvate
10
, $1143
$75
$183 ..
$1,401
$228 η
$289
$88
$15
$39 l
$819.
- $5.66 -t
AX POE
Cadmus
Nitrate
50
81 .042
$75
$168
$1,285
- $209
$270
$86
$15
$370
$579
$5
$529
POE
Cedmus
Nitrate
100
$942.
$75
- $152
$1,169
.-8190
$251
$88
. $15
$351
$542
: _ Ss
4. r$4,95cr ,
AX POU
Cadmua
Nitrate
I
$239
519
539
5297
$78
$365
$34
$15
$413
$492
5449
$449
POU
AX POU
Cadmus
Cadmus
Nitrate
NItrate
10
50
$203
$185
$13
$13
$32
530
S248 ,.
$228
r 381-
$60
, $312 -
$286
134
532
515 -
515
$391
$332
$428
$392
$389 .
$358
$3IE *tt9
$358
ii POU
Cadnurs
Nitrate
- 100
$167
$13
$27
$20? -
- $85 ,
$260
$32
$15--
$306
$381
- $329 -
r. - $3.29 i
Ta3 1a443.Cadgnus
Page 1
-------
Table 4.4.3: CapItal and Operation and Maintenance Cost Data Cadmus
Type o Point of
Unit Application
Source
Contaminant
Number of
Househoida
(hh)
Purchase
Price
($lhh)
installation
Coat ($Ihh)
Contingency
Cost($lhh)
Total Capital
Coat
(1U7$Ihh)
Amortized Annual Annual Annual
Capital Costs Maintenance Sampling Cost AdminIstrative
(1197$Ihhlyr) Cost($Ihhlyr) ($Ihhlyr) Cost($Ihhlyr)
Total Annual
O&M Cost
(1997$Ihhlyr)
Total Annual
Costs
(1997$Ihhlyr)
Cost p.r 1,000
Gallons Triated
(1991$II(gal)
Cost per 1,000
Gallons Used
(1997$IKgai)
r POE Cadmus
Copper
1
81.345
$112
$219
$1671
$273
$175
$89
$15
$278
$551
$5
$503
1 POE Cedmus
CX POE Cadmua
Ccpper
10 ,.
$1;143
875
$183
4 ;-S1.401
S228
,$160
$89
$15
-$283
$f t
f , 5 4 j,
Copper
50
$1042
$75
$168
$1,285
$209
$152
$87
$15
$253
$462
$4
$422
POE Cadmus
i . POU Cadmus
Copper
Copper
100
I
8942
$229
$75
$19
$152.
$37
$1,169
$286
$190
$75
$145
$325
$87
$35
$15
$15
$246
$374
$431
$450
- $4
$411
$3.98. i
$4 11
POU Cadmua -,
Copper
- 10
$195
$13
$3f,ss
, $239η
463 :
-$278
$35 Z
-$15 - -
. $328-
439t-
j $35
CX POU Cadmus
Copper
50
$177
$13
$29
$219
$58
$255
$33
$15
$302
$360
$329
$329
i POU Cadmua . -
POE Cadmus
POE Cadmus
Copper lOOz T $16O c $13
Radon(300) 1 84.345 $112
Radon (300) - 10:-: .911 $75
U8 j $199Z -! ,$83 ? S232 ,
$669 $5,126 $834 $375
$598 . -$4,58,3 : iZ48 , - - $210
- - $33 k ; $15--l . W9. $3$1 -4 S303 i - 33.03. P
$140 $15 $529 $1,363 $12 $1245
$140 . - i , $ 15 -- ! S384 $1.1l0 - - . $10 - $70 -13e -4 1
DBA POE Cadmus
φ POE Cadmus
Radon (300)
Radon (300)
50
.100
83.476
43,476
$75 $533
5175 - $533 .:
$4,083
$4.083
$665
, $665
$195
-S 195 - ,
$127
: M27
$15 $336
$15 - - $338 -
$1,001
-$1,001
$9 $9 14
- $9. r- - - $9.14
RO POE Cadmus
RO POE Cadmus
Msenic
ρenIc?.
1
10
88.445
-$ ,60U
$448
$$29D
$5,336
$14,229
$12I39
$2316
$3,057
$703
: $648
$121
z- $121.
$15
$15 -
$838
t S783 -
$3,154
$2 84o 2 ,
$29
$2880
93 - t
RO POE Cadmus
Arsenic
50
87.389
$299
$4,113
$12,301
$2,002
$634
$119
$15
$767
$2,769
$25
$2529
RO POE Cadmus
hsenlc
100
$7178
4299
$4,488 ,
-$11983
$1947
;S82G
$119
$15 c -
-4754
4 $2700 r
f $25 -
RO POU Cadmua
POU - Cadmus
ArsenIc
1
$730
$19
$112
$552
$227
$220
$32
$15
$268
$493
$450
$450
AraenIc
10.
$621
$l3 ,
$95
$728 -
- $192
5189
$32
$15
$235 -
! $42? -,
, $90 :
$l90 s5
RO POU Cadmus
Arsenic
50
$566
$13
$87
$865
$176
$173
$30
$15
$218
$393
$359
$359
RO POU Cadmus - - -
,ei c -
-100
$511 \
$13 1
) 479 ,
η$102
s $1$95
?4 M 1
$39
S15
$2O3
S381I4 fl
; c$3 5
.ic $&3O r e 4
RO POE Cadmus
Nitrate
1
$8,445
$448
$5,336
$14,229
$2316
$528
$123
$15
$666
$2,982
$27
$2723
RO POE Cdmua
Njtrate
- iO
$T,6O1
r $299
-. -$4,74Q
1812630
. -$20$7 - r
:.j$490; -
1123;
- ,SI5
! - $628
$z885
- $25
44,53 1
RO POE Cadmus
Nitrate
50
$7,389
$299
- $4,813
$12,301
$2,002
$481
$121
$15
$616
$2,818
$24
$2391
RO POE Cadmus ,
-Nlbate
,- 100I
$7178
$299 4
- -$4,486 - ,
: sn;pu ,
$1 947 -η
- $471 -
- $121
:-- *15 -3t
- $807
$2 S54
23 32r T j
RO POU Cadmus
Nitrate
I
$730
$19
$112
$862
$227
$152
$34
$15
$201
$428
$391
- $391
RO pOU Cadmua -
RO POU - Cadmus
NlpOte
Nitrate
i - - -- 0 t
50
$8$k
$568
a$13
$13
. $95Y
$87
$72$. -
$685
*$192 4
$176
3l$f ? -
$121
.y - ,$34 - Xi
$32
- $15 -
$15
- 8l80 -
$188
$372
$343
$$Ψ
$313
33,4Q 1 ,4
$313
RO POU Cadmus
;-I tr6t. : -
s 100 -
:1511
4$13
; - $79.ψ
- 3 $602 -
- *1$6
$111
- - $i2 -
- --SIs f -p.
$fs7 ,
ssii ;
- !vi289- -
Ό$289
Table 44 3- Cadmus
Page 2
-------
Number of people per heusehole
Waler consumed per person per day (gpdlper)
total waler use per person per 003 (gpwper)
Waler consumed per IlousetlO i t per peer (gpyflth)
told waler use per househele per peer (gpylhh)
Hours per mo nday
Eepeaeo eltedrre lie of POU (jeers)
Espeoled a Bodes lie 0 1 POE (peels)
Eepeded eftodise lie 01 Cartel Plant (poem)
Merely staled wage role ($40)
Steed wage rate (Sflrfl
lnslelelan bevel arts preparation 15110 (lssldey)
POU hivla oelan (Inland)
POE loolelellon flosIreil)
Memteoeeco crawl end preparatIon tIme (hrsldey)
POU meedenance (lesions)
POE mekdenance (bIs Mol)
Semplaig frequency (eenofeeflthlylj
Semplng treat end preparation thire (trrsldep)
POU esn Sg tone (losloeniple)
POE eemp&rg trw (loslsemple)
Serrηbog end mahrteoance coenthretlon Woe (losdrhlyr)
AnrertIzatloIr role
Conlmgencp lee
30
10
1000
1.09$ 0
100,5000
600
So
IS O
200
$14 50
$2000
200
100
300
200
07$
200
l x
100
02$
050
100
100%
150%
Table 4.4.3: Capital and Operation and Maintenance Cost Data Cadmus
AA
GAG
GAC
GAC
AX
AX
CX
(N Bulb
$01 VlSI
02.500
Cl Viol
$DIVIOI
109500
54,750
tO O 500
100.500
Year
loss
too l
1007
1950
1000
logo
loot
1002
1003
1004
1905
to n
1907
ps-lO SS
Year
105 5
1057
1050
toes
1000
toot
1002
t003
1004
1095
ton
t007
ps- I W O
POU
Reo oocernent Pai40
Contanibsent
Coot
Eaoected Life
&& Certrldge
Asset
00000
0
GAG Cestr hige
Aladdor
$4000
0
AXCertrldge
Arseolclittrete
$0000
0
CX Certrhige
Cooper
$7055
0
ROMentrone
Aisent
$13500
ROtluntrene
Note
$13500
2
Perlloslete Pier
Any
$1500
GAG pregesI-Itee
Any
$2000
I
PPI Final demand lose moray
teal
POE Component
Cordaenlnant
Cost
trenwecepedly
1907.152 5
56550
50050
50000
00000
$12555
$12500
$10000
$15050
503
003
1002
1035
100.2
1 125
1154
117 1
stag
1201
1224
1250
1255
P tA
Assort
Radon flO0)
Radon (1.500)
Assent
Note
Mt...bIA 1 0 teb
Bulk Dlecnwrt Rates
000
000
000
000
005
000
000
000
000
too
500
000
000
1000
PPI. Waler end sawer
Unit Descetptlon
Number of Unite Olecowrt
POIJ
tO 150%
50 225%
tOO . 300%
POOyeeROwOe)
50 150%
50 225%
tOO . 200%
POERO
tO 100%
50 125%
tOO . 150%
POEIorRn
tO 100%
50. 305%
Al OuSted crOnes mcorperele eseurnpeloeos Ic pornO conrpariton wllr Cednsrs cost nurses
Al semflrg Irlpo less piece et earns tbrw as neebdenwoco
Elec lrtcal costs are Ignored hi he catortatlon of Islet usual costs
K e y
Acronpee MeenlM - Acronym Meaning
10 17 1025
n o
tot I
1057
1102
1134
115$
110$
110$
1220
12 50
1300
1320
NA
1 1e
Ito
112
toe
105
1 03
102
tOO
007
094
501
too
I 03
M
AX
C DKOT
CX
DBA
OBCP
DCP
EDO
GAC
pep
N A
Adiveted Attic
Anion Errdreogs
sansec.e on mesa rrs
Cation Eadreege
DiSuse Bobitle Aerallen
Dddsroptpene
Etirytlibronade
frarveled Carbon
redoded web Purdlese
401 AjrIIOceble
NP
POE
POU
PPI
Rn
RO
TAC
TAOMC
ICE
( N
Not PreMed
Pohd .ol-Erdry
Pobrt ol-Uoe
Producer Prim Index
Radon
Reverse Oerntst
Inchaled I I least Annual Cots
Instated a total Anrdel O&M Cool
T n dtoomyicne
Utresloles DISIIIISdIOII
Lab Foes lab Otsnnisnt Rates Convorsion Fadors
ContamInant
Pee
Arsenic
$550
Copper
$1200
Note
$1100
Reden
$4650
AJedlior
50000
OSCPIEOB
$0700
ICEIGCP
$17300
tolelColleern
$1000
of Sansplae Oteceunt
301040 10%
Gesen LOm 3 705
Grab, Mtgram $4700
00.1 20%
Inalallabon fl(sonunt Rates
lof Unlta Olacoumes
tO . 33%
Table 4 4 3- cadmus
Paga 3
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
In identical processes, the least-cost POE and least-cost central treatment technologies are
determined. To detennine the least-cost treatment strategy for small communities of different
sizes (i.e., the community size at which POE becomes less expensive than POU treatment and at
which central treatment becomes less expensive than POE treatment and POU treatment), the
least-cost treatment options for POU, POE, and central treatment of the contaminant of concern
are compared.
Cost curves for central treatment with each technology were derived from data provided
by Gumerman (1984) for the capital and O&M costs of central treatment plants of varying
capacity. In order to account for inflation and changes within the industry over the last 15 years,
the costs provided by Gumennan were adjusted using the Producer Price Index for water and
sewer supply construction. The water supply and construction sub-Index was chosen to reflect
pricing developments within the water treatment industry. Because the current series begins in
1986, a pre-1986 index was derived from the average yearly rate of increase in the Index from
1986 to 1997. Central treatment costs provided by Gumerman were not otherwise adjusted.
The caveats noted for each treatment technology in section 1.3 and the particular
treatment requirements noted for each contaminant in sections 2 and 3 remain in effect (e.g., the
use of POE RO units may be illegal in certain localities).
4.4.1 Treatment for Arsenic
As detailed in section 2.1, arsenic may be successfully removed from drinking water by
several treatment technologies. AA, AX, and RO all may lower arsenic concentrations to below
the MCL of 5 jtg/L. In evaluating the cost of arsenic treatment by the three technologies, an
influent concentration of 100 jtg/L, or twice the MCL, was assumed.
4.4.1.1 Point-of- Use Treatment for Arsenic
The cost estimate for the implementation of a POU AA strategy for the treatment of
arsenic is presented in Figure 4.4.1 .1 .1. The Cadmus curve is consistent with the case study data.
The vendor that supplied data for a POU AA system was a national hardware chain. This firm
frequently provides deep discounts for water treatment equipment. However, little technical
support is provided. Thus, although the vendor-supplied cost for the use of a POU AA system is
less than that derived from this cost analysis, the discrepancy resulted from a trade-off (price
versus service and technical expertise) rather than a skewed cost estimate.
Figure 4.4.1 .1.2 presents the cost estimate for the application of a POU AX treatment
strategy for arsenic. As with POU AA, the Cadmus cost curve for POU AX is consistent with
the case study data. Vendors did not supply information on POU AX treatment units.
144
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
The Cadmus cost curve for POU RO treatment for arsenic is provided in Figure 4.4.1.1.3.
The curve is straddled by the vendor-supplied data and also matches well with the case study
costs. The schedule for membrane replacement in the San Ysidro case study was less frequent
than that assumed for the purposes of this cost analysis. This may explain why the Cadmus cost
estimate is somewhat higher for communities of 80 households than the case study data.
The cost curves for the implementation of POU AA, POU AX, and POU RO treatment
strategies are provided in Figure 4.4.1.1.4. All three of these treatment technologies have similar
costs regardless of community size. This similarity resulted from the fact that O&M labor costs
drove the total costs for these devices due to their low purchase price and since lab analyses for
arsenic are inexpensive (the three devices required the same number of service visits each year).
However, since AX technology is not frequently found in POU applications, and sinceRO
systems require somewhat more technical expertise to operate and maintain, AA was determined
to be the least-cost treatment technology at the POU.
4.4.1.2 Point-of-Entry Treatment for Arsenic
Contacted vendors indicated that they had not installed or sold AA units for POE
application. Nonetheless, POE AA and POE AX devices are identical except for the treatment
media. Since the capital and O&M costs for AX resins are similar to that of AA, the total cost
for POE AA and POE AX systems are nearly identical. The cost curve developed for POE AA
and POE AX treatment for arsenic is presented in Figure 4.4.1.2.1. Higher costs were provided
for the implementation of a POE AA or AX treatment strategy in the case studies and by the
vendors. One of the vendor-supplied devices consisted of a twin-tank (rather than a single tank)
AA system. Cadmus costs are within 15 percent of those provided by the vendor for a single
tank POE AA unit.
POE RO treatment is extremely expensive since POE RO devices have high capital and
O&M costs. The Cadmus cost curve was based on actual POE RO installation with appropriate
post-treatment and a large storage tank. While the Cadmus cost estimates presented in Figure
4.4.1.2.2 for POE RO exceed those developed by theoretical cost studies found in the literature,
they were in close agreement with the cost provided by the only vendor that had experience with
the installation and maintenance of a such a system. The costs for POE RO found in the
literature were estimates rather than actual case studies and did not include details regarding the
line-items included in the O&M of POE RO devices, the replacement schedule for device
components, or the inclusion of a storage tank for treated water.
Figure 4.4.1.2.3 illustrates that POE AX treatment is significantly more cost-effective
than POE RO treatment for arsenic, regardless of community size.
145
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
4.4.1.3 Central Treatment for Arsenic
Central treatment costs are provided in Figure 4.4.1.3.1. Although central AX is less
expensive for smaller communities, the least-cost technology for central treatment of arsenic is
AA for all communities of more than about 30 households.
4.4.1.4 Least-Cost Treatment for Arsenic
The least-cost POU, POE, and central treatment options for arsenic are presented in
Figure 4.4.1.4.1. According to the Cadmus cost equations, POU application of AA technology is
the least expensive treatment alternative for communities of less than about 75 households.
Larger communities would be served more cost-effectively by the application of AA technology
in a central treatment plant. Central treatment with AA becomes less expensive than POE (AX)
treatment for arsenic for communities of more than about 50 households. POE treatment for
arsenic is more expensive than POU treatment for arsenic for all studied communities.
Since both the POE and POU cost curves are relatively flat at their point of intersection
with the central treatment cost curve, a small change iii the price of either treatment option would
result in a sizeable change in the community population at which central treatment becomes the
most cost effective method of reducing arsenic concentrations in household water. For example,
a 10 percent decrease in the cost of POU technology would result in central treatment becoming
more cost-effective for communities of more than 85 households rather than communities of
more than 75 households. In contrast, a 10 percent increase in the cost of POU technology
would result in central treatment becoming more cost-effective for communities of more than 60
households rather than communities of more than 75 households.
146
-------
Figure 4.4.1.1.1
POU Treatment for Arsenic with Activated Alumina
$7.00
$6.00 - ------ ------____ _____ -____ ___ -- --____________________
0 . -
$5.00 I
$400
$3.00 - --- _________________________________
I-
y=4.48x°°°
$2.00
$1.00 ______________________________
$0.00.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Number of Households
POU AA (Case Studies) POU AA (Vendor) POU AA (Cadmus)
-------
Figure 4.4.1.1.2
POU Treatment for Arsenic with Anion Exchange
Number of Households
$600
$500
$4.00
(5
(5
(5
0
(5
C,
C
U
( 5
0
I-
I-
( 5
0.
U)
0
C.)
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$000
0 - 20 40 60 80 100 120
140
m POU AX (Case Studies)
POU AX (Cadmus)
-------
Figure 4.4.1.1.3
POU Treatment for Arsenic with Reverse Osmosis
$700
I
$6.00
$5.00 I _________________________________________
.
(3 $4.00 - -
$300 - ___ ___________
y=4.52x°° 6
$2.00 ______________________________________________________________________
C., I
$1 O0
$0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Number of Households
POU RO (Case Studies) POU RO (Vendor) POU RO (Cadmus)
-------
$5.00
$450
$4.00
U)
$350
0
C
0
$300
0
$2.50
U)
0
I-
I.
0 )
a.
. $1.50
0
C.,
$1.00
$0.50
$0.00
Figure 4.4.1.1.4
POU Treatment for Arsenic
Number of Households
POU AX (Cadmus)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
140
POU M (Cadmus)
POU RO (Cadmus)
-------
Figure 4.4.1.2.1
POE Treatment for Arsenic with Activated Alumina and Anion Exchange
$9.00
$8.00
I
$7.00
.
U,
U) $6.00
C I
$5.00
$4.00 ----- ____ _____ - _____
& $3.00 ___
$2.00 - _______________________________
$100 ___________________________
$0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Number of Households
POE M (Vendor) POE AX (Case Studies) POE AX (Cadmus)
-------
Figure 4.4.1.2.2
POE Treatment for Arsenic with Reverse Osmosis
$3500
$3000 - --- - ---- _______________ _______________________________
$2500 ______
U ,
y=28.54x°° 3
$20.00 - _______________________________________
C
U, -
U)
$1500 - --- - -- ________ - --- -
I-
1
C,
a.
$1000 - ---- - __________ ___ ____
0
C.)
$5.00 _____ A ___ _____ ______ _______
$000.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Number of Households
A POE RO (Study Estimates) POE RO (Vendor) POE RO (Cadmus)
-------
Figure 4.4.1.2.3
POE Treatment for Arsenic
$35.00
$30.00
$25.00
$20.00
U)
U)
0
U)
0
V
U)
U,
0
I-
I-
U,
a.
U)
0
U
$1500
$10.00
$500
$0.00
0
20
40
Number of Households
60
80 100 120
140
POE RO (Cadmus)
POE AX (Cadmus)
-------
Figure 4.4.1.3.1
Central Treatment for Arsenic
200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
Number of Households
Activated Alumina
C)
0)
0)
0
U)
C,
U)
0)
0
.z
I-
L.
C)
0.
4. 1
U)
0
C.)
$35 00
$30.00
$25.00
$20 00
$1500
$10 00
$500
$0.00
0
Central RO (Case Studies)
Anion Exchange Reverse Osmosis
-------
Figure 4.41.4.1
Treatment for Arsenic
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Number of Households
200
a)
a)
a)
C
0
a)
.
C
a)
U)
0
I.-
I -
a)
0.
U I
0
U
$1400
$12.00
$10.00
$800
$6.00
$4.00
$200
$000
Central AA (Gumerman)
POU M (Cadmus)
POE AX (Cadmus)
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
4.4.2 Treatment for Copper
Influent water was assumed to have a neutral pH and a copper load of 2.0 mg/L.
Therefore, pH adjustment technology was not included in devices designed to treat for copper. If
pH is a problem, a sacrificial mineral pre-filter could be installed with the treatment unit.
Although contacted vendors did not commonly install POU CX, CX treatment, commonly
referred to as water softening, is often applied as a POE technology.
4.4.2.1 Point-of-Use Treatment for Copper
The cost estimate for the implementation of a POU CX strategy for the treatment of
copper is presented in Figure 4.4.2.1.1. The Cadmus curve is consistent with both the case study
data and the vendor-supplied data. CX is the only POU treatment technology investigated for the
treatment of copper.
4.4.2.2 Point-of-Entry Treatment for Copper
The Cadmus cost curve for POE CX treatment for copper is presented in Figure 4.4.2.2.1.
Higher costs were provided for the implementation of a POE CX treatment strategy in the case
studies and by the vendors. The cost studies found in the literature did not include details
regarding the line-items included in the O&M of POE CX devices nor the replacement schedule
for device components. Cadmus cost estimates are within 15 percent of those provided by
vendors for POE CX units. As above, since CX is the only POE treatment technology
investigated for the treatment of copper, it is by definition the least-cost POE treatment.
4.4.2.3 Central Treatment for Copper
Central treatment costs are provided in Figure 4.4.2.3.1.
4.4.2.4 Least-Cost Treatment for Copper
The cost curves for the POU, POE, and central treatment options for copper control are
presented in Figure 4.4.2.4.1. According to the Cadmus cost equations, POU application of CX
technology is the least expensive treatment alternative for communities of less than about 30
households. Larger communities would be served most cost-effectively by the application of CX
technology in a central treatment plant. Central treatment with CX becomes less expensive than
POE (CX) treatment for copper for communities of more than about 15 households. POE
treatment for copper is more expensive than POU treatment for copper for all studied
communities.
156
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
Although both the POE and POU cost curves are relatively flat at their point of
intersection with the central treatment cost curve, the cost curve for central CX treatment has a
steep slope at the points of intersection. Therefore, a modest change in the cost of the POU or
POE application will not markedly alter the number of households at which central treatment
becomes the most economical treatment option. For example, a 10 percent decrease in the cost
of POU technology would result in central treatment becoming more cost-effective for
communities of more than 35 households rather than communities of 30 households. In contrast,
a 10 percent increase in the cost of POU technology would result in central treatment becoming
more cost-effective for communities of more than 25 households rather than communities of
more than 30 households.
157
-------
Figure 4.4.2.1.1
POU Treatment for Copper
$6.00 - .
$5.00 ------ ----------- --------- --- . - ----- -____ __________
___ ___
$2.00 ___
$1.00 -.---.-..---- -. -.-.- --- . .-- ._____ ______
$0.00 .
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Number of Households
POU CX (Case Studies) POU RO (Vendor) POU CX (Cadmus)
-------
120
20 40 60 80 100 140
Number of Households
POE CX (Vendor)
U POE CX (Case Studies)
POE CX (Cad mus)
Figure 4.4.2.2.1
POE Treatment for Copper
a)
U)
U,
0
U,
U,
0
I-
I-
a)
U,
0
C.)
$9.00
$8.00
$7.00
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
0
-------
$6.00
$5.00
0
$4.00
In
C
0
(5
CD
V
C
(U
a,
0
I-
I-
0
0.
a,
0
C )
$1.00
$3.00
$2.00
Figure 4.4.2.3.1
Central Treatment for Copper
600 800
Number of HouseholdS
Central CX (Gumerman)
$0.00
0
200
400
1,000
1,200
1,400
-------
Figure 4.4.2.4.1
Treatment for Copper
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Number of Households
POE CX (Cadmus)
C,
I l )
U)
0
In
0
I-
I ..
C)
a.
U)
0
C,
$9.00
$8.00
$7.00
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
$3.00
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
200
POU CX (Cadmus)
Central CX (Gumerman)
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
4.4.3 Treatment for Alachior
Alachior may be successfully removed from drinking water using GAC. For the purposes
of this cost analysis an influent concentration of 100 gfL was assumed. Although the
adsorption characteristics of carbon can vary greatly between different compounds, it was
assumed that the adsorption requirements for alachior were similar to those reported for VOCs.
However, to ensure adequate protection of the public health, an additional margin of safety was
engineered into all units used to treat for alachior.
4.4.3.1 Point-of-Use Treatment for Alachior
The cost estimate for the implementation of a POU GAC strategy for the treatment βf
alachior is presented in Figure 4.4.3.1.1. The Cadmus cost estimates for the POU treatment of
alachior with GAC were consistent with the case study data. Although Cadinus estimates were
above vendor-supplied costs, vendors specified less-frequent cartridge replacement. Less-
frequent component replacement resulted in lower total costs for POU GAC treatment. GAC is
the only POU treatment technology investigated for the treatment of alachior.
4.4.3.2 Point-of-Entry Treatment for Alachior
The Cadmus cost curve developed for POE GAC treatment for alachior is presented in
Figure 4.4.3.2.1. Although many case studies and theoretical cost estimates were provided for
the treatment of VOCs such as TCE and 1 ,2-DCP, none of the case studies examined in the
literature search provided pricing information for treatment of alachlor. Since lab analysis for
alachior is significantly less expensive than analysis for VOCs, this analysis does not compare
costs associated with treatment for alachior with costs associated with treatment for VOCs. GAC
is the only POE treatment technology investigated for the treatment of alachior.
4.4.3.3 Central Treatment for Alachior
Central treatment costs for GAC are provided in Figure 4.4.3.3.1.
4.4.3.4 Least-Cost Treatment for Alachior
The cost curves for the POU, POE, and central treatment options for alachior control are
presented in Figure 4.4.3.4.1. According to the Cadmus cost equations, POU application of
GAC technology is the least expensive treatment alternative for communities of less than about
70 households. Larger communities would be served most cost-effectively by the application of
GAC technology in a central treatment plant. Central treatment with GAC becomes less
expensive than POE (GAC) treatment for alachior for communities of more than about 10
162
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
households. POE treatment for alachlor was determined to be more expensive than POU
treatment for alachior for all studied communities.
Since both the POU and central cost curves are relatively flat at their point of intersection,
a small change in the price of either treatment option would result in a sizeable change in the
community population at which central treatment becomes the most cost effective method of
reducing alachior concentrations in household water. For example, a 10 percent decrease in the
cost of POU technology would result in central treatment becoming more cost-effective for
communities of more than 90 households rather than communities of 70 households. In contrast,
a 10 percent increase in the cost of POU technology would result in central treatment becoming
more cost-effective for communities of more than about 50 households rather than communities
of more than 70 households.
However, the cost curve for central GAC treatment has a steep slope at its point of
intersection with the POE cost curve. Therefore, a modest change in the cost of the POE
application will not markedly alter the number of households at which central treatment becomes
the most economical treatment option. For example, neither a 10 percent decrease nor a 10
percent increase in the cost of POU technology would not alter the 15-household breakpoint at
which central treatment becomes more cost-effective than POE treatment for alachlor.
163
-------
Figure 4.4.3.1.1
POU Treatment for Alachior
$6.00
$5.00 __________________________________________
0
0
o $4.00
- $3.00 ________________________________________________________________________________
0
o .
y=3.75x°° 6
$2.00 - -- ----- -________ ___________________________
$100 ___________ -
$000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Number of Households
POU AC (Case Studies) POU AC (Vendor) POU AC (Cadmus)
-------
Figure 4.4.3.2.1
POE Treatment for Alachior
$1000
EE ___ __ ____
y=9.27x°° 8
$6.00
$5.00 - ---______ _________________
U)
$4.00 --
$3.00
1)
0
C.,
$200
$1.00
$0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Number of Households
POE AC (Cad mus)
-------
$10.00
$900
$800
a)
$7.00
U)
0
$6.00
0
$5.00
U )
0
$4.00
$3.00
0
C.)
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
0
Figure 4.4.3.3,1
Central Treatment for Alachlor
200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
Number of Households
Central AC (Gumerman)
1,400
-------
Figure 4.4.3.4.1
Treatment for Alachior
$16.00
$14.00 -- -___________________________
$12.00 ------- --- ______ _ - _________________
U)
U)
$1000 ___________ _____________________________
U
$8.00 - ___________ _____________________________ _________________________________
U)
0
$6.00 - - ____--_______ ____ __________
C,
$4 00 - _____ _________________
y = 3.75x°°°
$200 - ____ -- ------.---
y = 23.87x° 5 °
$0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Number of Households
POU AC (Cadmus) POE AC (Cadmus) Central AC (Gumerman
-------
Cost Evaluation of FOU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
4.4.4 Treatment for Radon to 300 pCi/L
Numerous studies have been performed to evaluate the efficacy of various potential
remediation technologies for radon contamination. Both air-stripping (by PTA or DBA) and
GAC have proven effective in lowering radon concentrations in drinking water by up to 99
percent (Lowry 1989). However, air-stripping routinely outperformed GAC over long periods
and provided a more consistent level of radon removal.
4.4.4.1 Point-of Entry Treatment for Radon to 300 pCi/L
The cost curve developed by Cadmus for POE GAC treatment for radon (to 300 pCiIL) is
presented in Figure 4.4.4.1.1. The Cadmus cost estimates were higher than the costs provided
for the implementation of a POE GAC treatment for radon by the case studies and by the
vendors. While some of the GAC POE units (1 to 3 cubic feet of GAC) included in the studies
were effective in lowering radon levels, they may not provide sufficient contact time during peak
water usage periods to provide adequate radon removal of greater than 95 percent the rate
necessary to lower influent radon concentrations of 5,000 pCi/L to the desired level of 300
pCi/L. For this reason, an 18 cubic foot POE GAC system was designed and priced for treatment
of radon to 300 pCi/L for the Cadmus cost curves. Due to its larger size, greater capacity, and
greater complexity, this unit was significantly more expensive than the POE units described in
the available case studies.
POE aeration is relatively expensive due to the high capital costs associated with aeration
equipment. Moreover, while the Cadmus cost estimates presented in Figure 4.4.4.1.2 for POE
aeration exceed those provided by the cost studies found in the literature and the contacted
vendors, the aeration units described in the case studies and specified by the vendors did not
include the cost of a repressurization element, although aeration typically requires post-treatment
repressurization.
Figure 4.4.4.1.3 compares the costs of POE GAC and POE aeration to reduce radon
concentrations below 300 pCi/L. For communities of more than about 15 households, aeration is
the least-cost POE treatment.
4.4.4.2 Central Treatment for Radon to 300 pCi/L
Costs for GAC central treatment are provided in Figure 4.4.4.2.1. Figure 4.4.4.2.2
compares the cost of central treatment plants that utilize DBA with those that use PTA. Central
PTA is less expensive than central DBA for communities larger than about 25 households.
Figure 4.4.4.2.3 compares the cost of GAC central treatment with the cost of PTA central
treatment. Central PTA was found to be less expensive than central GAC treatment of radon for
all communities covered by this cost analysis.
168
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
4.4.4.3 Least-Cost Treatment for Radon (300 pCL/L)
The least-cost POE and central treatment options for radon reduction are presented in
Figure 4.4.4.3.1. According to the Cadmus cost equations, a community water system (i.e., a
water system serving more than 15 connections) would not find POE treatment to be more cost-
effective than central treatment for the reduction of radon levels below 300 pCIIL.
169
-------
$14.00
$12 00
$10.00
U)
C
0
$8.00
C
U)
U)
$6.00
I-
U)
a
U)
0
C)
$2.00
$0.00
Figure 4.4.4.1.1
POE Treatment for Radon to 300 pCi/L with Activated Carbon
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Number of Households
POE AC (Vendor)
140
POE AC (Case Studies)
POE AC (Cad mus)
-------
Figure 4.4.4.1.2
POE Treatment for Radon to 300 pCi/L with Aeration
POE Aeration (Cadmus)
140
.5
0
0 )
U )
C
0
U )
C D
D
C
U )
U )
0
C
I-
C)
a.
a.
U )
0
C.,
$14.00
$12 00
$1000
$8.00
$600
$4.00
$2.00
$0.00
0 20 40 60
Number of Households
POE Aeration (Vendor)
80 100 120
U POE Aeration (Case Studies)
-------
Figure 4.4.4.1.3
POE Treatment for Radon to 300 pCi/L
$14.00
:::: ________
y=12.24x°° 7
U)
(I )
$6.00 __________________________________________________________ _______________________________________
I-
I-
U)
$4.00 ________________
$2.00 ---- --- - -- ------ - - ____ ___ _____
$000 .
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Number of Households
POE AC (Cadmus) POE Aeration (Cadmus)
-------
$1000
$9.00
$8.00
C)
$7.00
I , ) -
$600
$500
0
$400
$3.00
$200
$1.00
$000
Figure 4.4.4.2.1
Central Treatment for Radon to 300 pCi/L with Activated Carbon
Number of Households
Central AC (Gumerman)
1,400
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
-------
Figure 4.4.4.2.2
Central Treatment for Radon to 300 pCi/L with Aeration
Number of Households
1,400
V
U)
U)
U)
C
0
U)
C D
V
C
U)
U)
0
C
I-
U)
0.
U)
0
C.)
$250
$2.00
$1.50
$1.00
$0.50
$000
0
200 400 600 800 1,000 1.200
Central DBA (Gurnerman)
Central PTA (Gumerman)
-------
$1000
$9.00
$8.00
.5
0
! $7.00
U,
0
$6.00
0
.5
$5.00
U ,
0
j. ::
$2.00
$1 00
$0.00
0
Figure 4.4.4.2.3
Centra! Treatment for Radon to 300 pCiIL
Number of Households
200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
1,400
Central AC (Gumermari)
Central PTA (Gumerman)
-------
Figure 4.4.4.3.1
Treatment for Radon to 300 pCi/L
0 2ff 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Number of Households
V
C )
0)
0)
C
0
C ,
(9
V
C
C ,
0
0
I - .
C)
a.
ad
0
0
C,
$14.00
$12.00
$10.00
$8.00
$6.00
$4.00
$2.00
$0.00
200
POE Aeration (Cadmus)
Central PTA (Gumermari)
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
4.4.5 Radon Treatment to 1,500 pCi/L
The design parameters for a GAC system that must reduce influent radon levels by only
about 70 percent (5,000 pCiIL to 1,500 pCiIL) are much less stringent than those necessary for
the GAC systems designed to remove more than 95 percent of influent radon described in section
4.4.4. Smaller POE GAC units (4.5 to 6.0 cubic feet) could therefore be successfully utilized.
Aeration systems identical to those described in Section 4.4.4 could be used to treat radon to
effluent levels of 1,500 pCiIL.
4.4.5.! Point-of-Entry Treatment for Radon to 1,500 pCi/L
The cost curve developed by Cadmus for POE GAC treat nent for radon (to 1,500 pCi/L)
is presented in Figure 4.4.5.1.1. The Cadmus cost estimates match well with the costs provided
for the implementation of a POE GAC treatment for radon by the case studies. As per Lowry
(1989), Cadmus assumed that radon would decay while trapped in the GAC bed, obviating the
need to replace GAC in the absence of other contaminants. Since both vendors that provided
pricing information for POE GAC units specified costs for carbon replacement, Cadnius
estimates were lower than those of the vendors.
POE aeration is relatively expensive due to the high capital costs associated with aeration
equipment. Moreover, while the Cadmus cost estimates presented in Figure 4.4.5.1.2 for POE
aeration exceed those provided by the cost studies found in the literature and the contacted
vendors, the aeratiθn units described in the case studies and specified by the vendors did not
include the cost of a repressurization element, although aeration typically requires post-treatment
ran..act...... . .nG.an
Figure 4.4.5.1.3 compares the costs associated with implementing POE GAC and POE
aeration to reduce radon concentrations below 1,500 pCiIL. Unlike radon treatment to 300 pCi/L
(see section 4.4.4), POE GAC is less expensive than POE aeration for all small communities
investigated in the cost analysis. This result is consistent with the finding that it is not necessary
(and not cost-effective) to supplement GAC treatment with aeration when lower removal rates
are required.
4.4.5.2 Central Treatment for Radon to 1,500 pCi/L
Costs for GAC central treatment are provided in Figure 4.4.5.2.1. Figure 4.4.5.2.2
compares the cost of central treatment plants that utilize DBA with those that use PTA. Central
PTA is less expensive than central DBA for communities larger than about 25 households.
Figure 4.4.5 2.3 compares the cost of GAC central treatment with the cost of PTA central
treatment. Central PTA is less expensive than central GAC treatment of radon regardless of
community size.
177
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
4.4.5.3 Least-Cost Treatment for Radon (1,500 pCi/L)
The least-cost POE and central treatment options for radon reduction to 1,500 pCiIL are
presented in Figure 4.4.5.3.1. According to the Cadmus cost equations, a community water
system (i.e., a water system serving more than 15 connections) would not find POE treatment to
be more cost-effective than central treatment for the reduction of radon levels below 1,500 pCiIL.
178
-------
Figure 4.4.5.1.1
POE Treatment for Radon to 1,500 pCi!L with Activated Carbon
$12.00
$1000 -_____
I
U)
U)
$8.00
$6.00 -
I y=7.28x°° 4
0
.c
I-
I °° --- __---__
$2.00 ___________________________________
$0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Number of Households
POE AC (Case Studies) POE AC (Vendor) POE AC (Cadmus)
-------
Figure 4.4.5.1.2
POE Treatment for Radon to 1,500 pCi/L with Aeration
$14.00
:::: 1224 ° ___ _ ___
$800 -___ ._f -
$6.00 -____________________________________________
.
I-
w
$4.00 - - - -__________________
$2.00 __________________________________________
$0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Number of Households
POE Aeration (Case Studies) POE Aeration (Vendor) POE Aeration (Cadmus)
-------
Figure 4.4.5.1 3
POE Treatment for Radon to 1,500 pCi/L
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Number of Households
140
0
0
(0
0
0
C
0
(0
0
I-
I-
0
0.
(0
0
C.)
$14.00
$12.00
$10.00
$8.00
$6.00
$4.00
$2.00
$0.00
POE AC (Cad mus)
POE Aeration (Cad mus)
-------
$10.00
$9.00
$800
$7.00
$6.00
$5.00
0)
0
$4.00
$3.00
0
0
$2.00
$1.00
$0.00
0
200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
Number of Households
Centrat AC (Gumerman)
Figure 4.4.5.2.1
Central Treatment for Radon to 1,500 pCi/L with Activated Carbon
1,400
-------
$250
$2.00
a)
0
:::
$0.50
$0.00
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
Figure 4.4.5.2.2
Central Treatment for Radon to .1,500
with Aeration
Number of Households
1,400
Central DBA (Gumerman)
Central PTA (Gumerman)
-------
Figure 4.4.5.2.3
Central Treatment for Radon to 1,500 pCi/L with Activated Carbon
$10.00
$9.00 - __________________
$8.00
U)
$7.00 -_____________________ ____ __________ __________________
U)
$6.00 -- - _____ ___________
15 -
0
$5.00 ___
y=23.641° 50 (CentralAC) -
jE $4.00 -- ____- -------- ---- - ------ - - -
$3.00 - ____________________ ____________________________________________
0
C.,
$2.00 - -
$1.00 ____ ______ y = 15.94x (Central PTA)
$0.00
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
Number of Households
Central AC (Gumerman) CentraI PTA (Gumerman)
-------
Figure 4.4.5.3.1
Treatment for Radon to 1,500 pCi/L
$800
y7.28x 04
$500
0
$4.00 - - ____________________________ ____ _____________________
0
$300 ------ -- --- - -- ------ - --____ _____-- --------- ____
0.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Number of Households
POE AC (Cadmus) Central PTA (Gumerman)
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
4.4.6 Trichloroethyleize Treatment
As detailed in section 2.9, GAC treatment systems have been shown to effectively reduce
concentrations of organic compounds in drinking water. However, while POU units were
deemed acceptable for the treatment of alachlor (alachlor does not volatilize at low
temperatures), EPA does not believed that POU devices provide sufficient protection of the
public health when TCE is the contaminant of concern (see sections 1.2 and 2.9)
4.4.6.1 Point-of-En fry Treatment for Trichioroethylene
The cost curve developed by Cadmus for POE GAC treatment for TCE is presented in
Figure 4.4.6.1.1. Case studies and theoretical cost estimates that investigated the use of POE
devices for the treatment of VOC5 (1,2-DCP) and synthetic organic compounds (SOCs such as
DBCP, EDB) were included in Figure 4.4.6.1.1 since each of these contaminants require
expensive lab analyses and since exposure to any of these contaminants through inhalation or
dermal contact may lead to adverse health affects. The Cadmus cost curie fits well with both
case study and vendor-supplied cost data. Since lab analyses of VOCs and SOCs are so
expensive, the difference between Cadmus cost estimate and those provided for some of the case
studies most likely result from differences in the costs assumed for lab analysis.
POE aeration is relatively expensive due to the high capital costs associated with aeration
equipment. Moreover, while the Cadnius cost estimates presented in Figure 4.4.6.1.2 for POE
aeration exceed those provided by contacted vendors, they are consistent with costs provided in
the case studies. The aeration units specified by the vendors did not include the cost of a
repressurization element, although aeration typically requires post-treatment repressurization.
POE GAC was found to be the most cost-effective POE treatment option for TCE
removal for all communities investigated in this study (see Figure 4.4.6.1.3).
4.4.6.2 Central Treatment for Trichioroethylene
Central treatment costs for GAC provided in Figure 4.4.6.2.1 seem to be consistent with
the costs found in the case studies. Figure 4.4.6.2.2 compares the cost of central treatment plants
that utilize DBA with those that use PTA. Central PTA is less expensive than central DBA for
communities larger than about 25 households. Figure4.4.6.2.3 compares the cost of GAC
central treatment with the cost of PTA central treatment. Central PTA is less expensive than
central GAC treatment for all communities covered by this analysis.
186
-------
Cost Evaluation ofPOU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
4.4.6.3 Least-Cost Treatment for Trichioroethylene
The cost curves for the least-cost POE and central treatment options for TCE control are
presented in Figure 4.4.6.3.1. According to the Cadmus cost equations, central PTA is the least
expensive treatment alternative for all communities investigated in this cost analysis.
187
-------
Figure 4.4.6.1.1
POE Treatment for Trichioroethylene with Activated Carbon
$18.00
I
$1600 - ------- -___ ____________ ----
$1400 .
.. :
$12.00 - -R
$10.00 .
$800 - - -------------. --- - -
y=9.98x°°8
& $600
0
$4.00 _______________________ _________________- -____ _____ ____________________
$2.00 - _________- -- ---______________ _____ ________________
$000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Number of Households
POE AC (Case Studies) POE AC (Vendor) POE AC (Cadmus)
-------
Figure 4.4.6.1.2
POE Treatment for Trichioroethylene with Aeration
$1800
$16.00
$1400 --- - --- --- ----____ ___ _________ _______________
::::
$8.00 !___ ___________- -________________________________ __________________________________
$6 00 . y = 12.24x°° 7
$400 _____________________________
$2.00 - -- . - _________________________________
$0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Number of Households
POE Aeration (Case Studies) POE Aeration (Vendor) POE Aeration (Cadmus)
-------
Figure 4.4.6.1.3
POE Treatment for Trichioroethylene
$14.00
y=9.98x°
2 $6.00
I-
0 )
a.
$4.00 __________________________________
C.,
$2.00 _______ ___________ _______________________________________________
$0.00 I
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Number of Households
POE AC (Cadmus) POE Aeration (Cadmus)
-------
$18.00
$16.00
$14.00
$12.00
O $10.00
$8.00
$600
$4.00
$2.00
$0.00
Figure 4.4.6.2.1
Central Treatment for Trichioroethylene with Activated Carbon
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
Number of Households
1,400
Central AC (Case Studies)
Central AC (Gumerman)
-------
Figure 4.4.6.2.2
0 200 400 600 80Q 1,000 1,200
Number of Households
1,400
Central Treatment
with Aeration
a)
U)
U)
0
IS
IS
U)
0
I-
4 ,
a.
U)
0
U
$2.50
$2.00
$1.50
$1.00
$0.50
$0.00
Central DBA (Gumerman)
Central PTA (Gumerman)
-------
$1000
$9.00
$800
w
$7.00
U)
0
$6.00
$5.00
U)
0
$400
$3.00
0
C.,
$2.00
$1 00
$0.00
0
Figure 4.4.6.2.3
Central Treatment for Trichloroethylene
200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
Number of Households
1,400
Central AC (Gumerman)
Central PTA (Gumerman)
-------
Figure 4.4.6.3.1
Treatment for Trichioroethylene
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Number of Households
.c
0
U)
U)
C
0
U)
0
V
C
U)
U)
0
I-
I-
0
0.
U,
0
C.,
$12 00
$1000
$8.00
$6.00
$4.00
$2.00
$0.00
200
POE AC (Cadmus)
Central PTA
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DR4FT Do Not Cite or Quote
4.4.7 Nitrate Treatment
Both AX and RO technology have been proven to be effective for the treatment of nitrate
contamination (see section 2.6). The influent concentration of nitrate was assumed to be 20
mgfL (double the MCL). Communities with young children should carefully consider using a
POE treatment strategy rather than a POU treatment strategy due to nitrates acute adverse
impact on infant health.
4.4.7.1 Point-of-Use Treatment for Nitrate
The cost estimate for the implementation of a POU AX strategy for the treatment of
nitrate is presented in Figure 4.4.7.1.1. The Cadnius curve is consistent with the case study data.
No vendor provided information on the POU application of AX technology.
The Cadmus cost curve for POU RO treatment for arsenic is provided in Figure 4.4.7.1.2.
The curve is straddled by the vendor-supplied data and also matches well with the costs provided
by the applicable case studies.
The cost curves for the implementation of POU AX and POU RO treatment strategies are
provided in Figure 4.4.7.1.3. Although AX technology is not frequently found in POU
applications, POU AX is more cost effective than POU RO for the removal of nitrate.
4.4.7.2 Point-of-Entry Treatment for Nitrate
The cost curve developed by Cadmus for POE AX treatment for nitrate is presented in
Figure 4.4.7.2.1. The Cadmus cost estimates are in close agreement with the costs provided by
vendors and case studies.
As noted in section 4.4.1.2, POE RO treatment is extremely expensive since POE RO
devices have high capital and O&M costs. The Cadmus cost curve was based on actual POE RO
installation with appropriate post-treatment and a large storage tank. While the Cadmus cost
estimates presented in Figure 4.4.7.2.2 for POE RO exceed those developed by theoretical cost
studies found in the literature, they were in close agreement with the cost provided by the only
vendor that had experience with the installation of and maintenance of a such a system. The
costs for POE RO found in the literature were estimates rather than actual case studies and did
not include details regarding the line-items included in the O&M of POE RO devices, the
replacement schedule for device components, or the inclusion of a storage tank for treated water.
Figure 4.4.7.2.3 illustrates that POE AX treatment is significantly more cost-effective
than POE RO treatment for nitrate, regardless of community size.
195
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
4.4.7.3 Central Treatment for Nitrate
Oumennans cost estimates for central AX treatment are consistent with costs found in
the case studies (see Figure 4.4.7.3.1). Central treatment for nitrate with AX is compared to
central treatment for nitrate with RO in Figure 4.4.7.3.2. The least-cost technology for central
treatment of nitrate is clearly AX for all communities investigated in this cost analysis.
4.4.7.4 Least-Cost Treatment for Nitrate
The least-cost POU, POE, and central treatment options for nitrate are presented in Figure
4.4.7.4.1. According to the Cadmus cost equations, POU application of AX technology is the
least expensive treatment alternative for communities of less than about 180 households. Larger
communities would be served more cost-effectively by the application of AX technology in a
central treatment plant. Central treatment with AX becomes less expensive than POE (AX)
treatment for nitrate for communities of more than about 40 households. POE treatment for
nitrate was found to be more expensive than POU treatment for nitrate for all studied
communities.
Since both the POE and POU cost curves are relatively flat at their point of intersection
with the central treatment cost curve, a small change in the price of either treatment option would
result in a sizeable change in the community population at which central treatment becomes the
most cost effective method of reducing arsenic concentrations in household water. For example,
a 10 percent increase in the cost of POU technology would result in central treatment becoming
more cost-effective for communities of more than 120 households rather than communities of
more than 180 households.
196
-------
$900
$800
$7.00
U)
0,
ui $6.00
0
(U
o $5.00
C
(U
U)
$4.00
I-
$3.00
$200
$1.00
$0.00
Figure 4.4.7.1.1
POU Treatment for Nitrate with Anion Exchange
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
140
Number of Households
U POU AX (Case Studies)
POUAX
-------
Figure 4.4.7.1.2
POU Treatment for Nitrate with Reverse Osmosis
$7.00
$6.00 --- ____________________
$5.00 I
0
I __ ________
$4 --____ _____________________
2 $3.00 -
I-
I.
0
$2.00 - - -__________________________________________
$1.00
$0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
w
POU RO (Case Studies) 4 POU RO (Vendor) POU RO
-------
Figure 4.4.7.1.3
POU Treatment for Nitrate
$5.00
4.51x ___ _______ _________
y=3.92x 406
$2.50 - -------- --. --- --------- ----___ ______ _________
10
0
I- ------- ------------ ----------------------------------------- -------- _______
I..
10
0.
10 - __________________________________________________________
0
C.,
$1.00 - - _____ -- - - --- --- ---_________________ _______________________
$0.50
$0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Number of Households
POU AX POU RO (Cadmus)
-------
Figure 4.4.7.2.1
POE Treatment for Nitrate with Anion Exchange
$900
$8.00 I-________________ ______ - ________________________________
I
$700 -------------------- --- - ------ - -_____
$6.00 --
0 $5.00 ____ _____ ______ ______ ____
y 6.42x°° 5
$400 --- -___ ________________
& $3.00 - --_____________________________________
$2.00 - - _________________________________
$1.00
$000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Number of Households
POE AX (Case Studies) POE AX (Vendor) POE AX (Cadmus)
-------
Figure 4.4.7.2.2
POE Treatment for Nitrate with RO
$35.00
$3000 -
$25.00 --- - _______
0 ) I
y=26.98x °° 3
$20.00 - _____ ____
0)
o $1500
I I
I-
0)
I siooo ______________________ ___________ ________________________
$500 ---__________________________
$000 .
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Number of Households
POE RO (Study Estimates) POE RO (Vendor) POE RO (Cadmus)
-------
Figure 4.4.7.2.3
POE Treatment for Nitrate
$3000
y=26.981°° 3
$25 00 ____________________________________________
$20.00 _________ _____ __________ - ___________________________
C $15.00 _______ _________ ____ ___ --- - -- - ----- - - --- - ____
0
I-
$1000 : i.i i _ ii --------- -------- - - --- --- ---- -- -- -- -
$5.00
y = 6.42x°° 5
$0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Number of Households
POE AX (Cadmus) POE RO (Cadmus)
-------
Figure 4.4.7.3.1
Central Treatment for Nitrate with Anion Exchange
$9.00
$800 ------------------------- ----- -------- ------
$7.00 _________________________________ ________________________
V
U)
U)
U)
0
U)
CD $5.00 -_________ _______________________
C
C
U)
$4.00 --- --------- -------- -------- -- - --- -- - -
.0 --- ___________________
y=15.62x° 3 °
$2.00
.
$1.00 -- --- -- - -________
$0.00 -
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
Number of Households
U Central AX (Case Studies) Central AX
-------
$20 00
$18.00
$16.00
.5
$14.00
In
:g $12.00
In
C,
.5
$10.00
I n
0
.c
I $8.00
I-
In
a
$6.00
C.)
$4.00
$200
$0.00
0
Figure 4.4.7.3.2
Central Treatment for Nitrate
200 400 600 8Q0 1,000 1,200
Number of Households
1,400
Central AX (Gumernian)
Central RO (Gumerman)
-------
$9.00
$800
. $700
0
0)
$6.00
0
0
C $5.00
0
$4.00
0
I-
$300
U $2.00
$100
$000
Figure 4.4.7.4.1
Treatment for Nitrate
0 20 40 60 - - 80 100 120 140 160 180
Number of Households
POE AX (Cadmus)
200
POU RO (Cadmus)
Central AX (Gumerman)
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). Trichloroethylene, ATSDR Public Health
Statement. October 1989.
Bell, F., D. Perry, 3. Smith, and S. Lynch. Studies on Home Treatment System , Journal AWWA . 76:2, pp. 126-
130. February 1984.
Bellack, E. Arsenic Removal From Potable Water, Journal AWWA . 63:7:454. July 1971.
Bellen, G., M. Anderson, and R. Gottler. Final Report: Management of Point-of-Use Drinking Water Treatment
Systems, National Sanitation Foundation for EPA, Cincinnati, OH. Cooperative Agreement #R8092480 10. 1985.
Bel len, 0., It Gottler, and M. Anderson. Point-of-Use Reduction of Volatile Halogenased Organics in Drinking
Water, Water Engineering Research Laboratory, USEPA, Cincinnati, OH, Contract R8092480 10. 1985.
Bianchin, S. Point-of-Use and Point-of-Entry Treatment Devices Used at Superfund Sites to Reiqediate
Contaminated Drinking Water, from Proceedingspflhe Conference on Point-of-Use Treatment of Drinkin g Water.
Cincinnati. OH . October 6-8, 1987.
Calderon, R. An Epidemiological Study on the Bacteria Colonizing Granular Activated Carbon Point-of-use
Filters, from Proceedines of the Water Oualitv Association Annual Conventions. Dallas. TX . March 1987.
Calmon, C. Notes and Comments, Journal AWWA . 65:8:568. August 1973.
Clifford, D. and E. Rosenb lum. The Equilibrium Arsenic Capacity of Activated Alumina, USEPA, Cincinnati,
OH, Cooperative Agreement CR-807939-02. 1982.
Clifford, D. and E. Rosenb lum. The Equilibrium Arsenic Capacity of Activated Alumina, USEPA, Cincinnati,
OH, Cooperative Agreement CR- 807939-02. 1982.
CO1/WWWebstore, Softener Discharge Can Damage or Impair the Operation of a Septic Tank.
http://www.primenet.com/.-.rayne/ I .htn. I 997a.
COI/WWWebsite, Sodium Consumption From Softened Water Poses a Health Risk to The Average Person.
Http://www.primenet.comlraynel3.htm. I 997b.
Criteria and Standards Division, Office of Drinking Water, U.S. EPA. Fact sheet/update, home water treatment
units contract. July 1980.
Den Blanken, 3. Microbial Activity in Activated Carbon Filters, Journal of the Environmental Engineering
Division , ASCE, Vol. 108, pp. 405-425. April, 1982.
Dufour, A. Health Studies of Aerobic Heterotrophic Bacteria Colonizing Granular Activated Carbon Systems,
from Proceedings: Conference on Point-of-Use Treatment of Drinking Water. Cincinnati. OH . October 6-8, 1987.
207
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)
Fox, K. Field Experience with Point-of-Use Treatment Systems for Arsenic Removal, Journal AWWA . February
1989.
Fox, K. and 1. Sorg. Controlling Arsenic, Fluoride, and Uranium by Point-of-Use Treatment, Journal AWWA .
October 1987.
Garoll. Effective Disinfections on Giardia Cysts. CRC Critical Review in Environmental Controls . 18:1-28.
1988.
Geidreich, E., R. Taylor, J. Blannon, and D. Reasoner. Bacterial Colonization of Point-of-Use Water Treatment
Devices, Journal AWWA , pp. 72-80. February 1985.
Geidreich, E., et al. Bacterial Colonization of Point-of-use Water Treatment Devices. Journal AWWA . 77:2, pp.
72-80. February 1985.
Goodrich, J., B. Lykins, J. Adams, R. Clark, Safe Drinking Water for the Little Guy: Options and Alternatives.
From the 1990 Annual Conference Proceedings, American Water Works Association, Cincinnati, OH. 1111.
June 17-21, 1990.
Gumerman, et. al. Estimation of Small System Water Treatment Costs. CuIp, Wesner, CuIp., Santa Ana, CA.
November 1984.
Gumerman, R.C., et. al. Standardized Costs for Water Supply Distribution Systems . HDR Engineering, Inc., Irvine,
CA. January 1992.
Gupta, S.K. and K.Y. Chen. Arsenic Removal by Adsorption, Journal WPCF . 50:3:493. March 1978.
Huxstep, M.R. Inorganic Contaminant Removal from Drinking water by Reverse Osmosis, USEPA, NTIS PB
8 1-224 420, Springfield, VA. 1981.
IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System). Health assessment information for Aldicarb. Principal study: Rhone-
Poulenc Ag Company 1992, A Safety and Tolerability Study of Aldicarb at Various Dose Levels in Healthy Male
and Female Volunteers, Inveresk Clinical Research Report No, 7786. MRID No. 4237301-01, HED Doc. No.
0010459. U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development. Last revised 1993a.
IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System). Health assessment information for Alachlor. Principal study:
Monsanto Company 1984, MRID No. 00091050,00109319,40284001; HED Doc. No. 003753, 004091, 004855.
U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development. Last revised 1993b.
Kinner, Nancy E., et. al. Radon Removal Techniques for Small Community Public Water Supplies, Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory, USEPA, Cincinnati, OH. Cooperative Agreement CR 812602-01-0. June 1989.
Lake, R. Activated Alumina for POU/POE Removal of Fluoride and Arsenic, from Proceedings: Conference on
Point-of-Use Treatment of Drinking Water. Cincinnati. OH . October 6-8, 1987.
208
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)
Lassovsky, P. and S. Hathaway. Treatment Technologies to Remove Radionuclides From Drinking Water,
National Workshop on Radioactivity in Drinking Water . May 24-26, 1983.
Longley, K.E., G.P. Hanna, and B.H. Gump. Removal of DBCP from Groundwater, Volume 1, POEIPOU
Treatment Devices: Institutional and Jurisdictional Factors, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, USEPA,
Cincinnati, OH. EPAI600IS2-891029. January 1990.
Lorenzo-Lorenzo , M., M. Ares-Ma72S, 1. Villacona-Martinez de Maturana, and D. Duran-Oreiro. The Effect of
Ultraviolet Disinfection of Drinking Water on the Viability of Cryptosporidiwn Parv:um Oocysts, Journal of
Parasitoloav , Issue 79, pp. 67-70. February 1993.
Lowry, J.D., S.B. Lowiy, and J.K. Cline. Radon Removal by POE GAC Systems: Design, Performance, and Cost,
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, USEPA, Cincinnati, OH. Contract No. 8C6 1 55TFST. January 1989.
Lykins Jr., B.W., R.M. Clark, and iA. Goodrich. Point-of-use / Point-of-entrv for Drinking Water Treatment . Lewis
Publishers, Ann Arbor, Ml. 1992.
Michigan State University Extension. A Guide to Home Water Treatment, MSU Extension Water Ouality
Bulletins WQ219201. July 14, 1997. http://www.msue.msu.edu/msuefimp/modwq/wq219201.htxnl.
Mood, E., and R. Calderon. An Epidemiological Study on Bacteria in Point-of-use Activated Carbon Filters.
draft report to Health Effects Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH for Cooperative Agreement CR-8 11904. 1987.
Nevada Division of Water Planning. Water Words Dictionary Appendix T-2,
http://www.state.nv.us/cnr/ndwp/dict-1/app_t2.htin. From AWWAs Introduction to Water Treatment . Vol. 2,
Denver, CO. 1984.
Reasoner, D., et al. Microbiological Characteristics of Third Faucet Point-of-use Devices, Journal AWWA .
79:10:60. October 1987.
Regunathan, P., W. Beauman, and D. iarog. Precoat Carbon Filters as Barriers to Incidental Microbial
Contamination, from Proceedings: Conference on Point-of-Use Treatment of Drinking Water. Cincinnati. OH .
October 6-8, 1987.
Rice, R. and C. Robson. Bioloaicallv Activated Carbon . Ann Arbor Science, pp. 72-87. 1982..
Rogers, K. Point-of-Use Treatment of Drinking Water in San Ysidro, NM, USEPA DWRD, Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, CR-S 12499-01. November 1988.
Rozelle, L. Overview of POU and POE Systems, from Conference on POU Treatment of Drinking Water.
Cincinnati. OH . October 6-8, 1987.
Shen, VS.. Study of Arsenic Removal From Drinking Water, Journal AWWA . 65:8:543. August 1973.
The National Research Council. Nitrate and Nitrite in Drinking Water, National Academy Press, Washington,
D.C. 1995.
209
-------
Cost Evaluation of POU/POE Treatment Options EPA DRAFT Do Not Cite or Quote
BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)
USEPA MERL-DWRD program reports on arsenic removal.
USEPA. Drinking Water Criteria Document on NitratelNitrite, Criteria and Standards Division, Office of
Drinking Water, Washington, D.C. 1990.
USEPA. Standardized Costs for Water Distribution Systems, draft, DWRD. May 1990.
Van Dyke, K. and R. Kuennen, Performance and Applications of Granular Activated Carbon Point-of-Use
Systems, from Proceedings: Conference on Point-of-Use Treatment of Drinking Water. Cincinnati. OH . October
6-8, 1987.
Waypa, J, M. Elimelech, and J. Hering. Arsenic Removal by RO and NF Membranes, Journal AWWA . Vol. 89,
Issue 10, pp. 102-114. October 1997.
210
------- |